[sinkspur]

True, but will that be what you conclude?

I don't understand. I conclude that the lawyer is trying to obfuscate his client's guilt (his client ADMITS he's guilty) by raising "Constitutional issues," which have nothing to do with the case.

Jurors decide on the law, not whether the law is Constitutional or not.

[Poohbah]

Marbury vs. Madison comes to mind.

[bvw]

Jurors have a great liberty of deciding what they chose to decide in chambers, and Marbury doesn't limit that at all, I would say.