Here is a sample, from a thread on a Voir Dire Jury Selection:
"Judge McGroarty asked every prospective juror to enter the box "And will you promise to obey any instructions in the law I may give you, even should you disagree with one or more of them?"
(One poster's response)
"I think he's overstating the intent of the judge's question. What I think the judge is asking is "If I instruct you to disregard this witnesses' testimony, or instruct you not to discuss the case outside this courtroom or instruct you not to read or watch any news coverage of this case, will you be able to follow my instructions?"
" Judges believe that most of their decisions are based on the laws handed down by USOC or their state Supreme Court or an appeals court. IOW, that is "the law". When the judge makes these instructions, it is to insure a fair trial instead of a mistrial or a case overturned on appeal."
"I don't think the judge was asking them to rip up their legal rights and blindly follow the judge's every belief."
"Besides, if one is asked to sit on a jury, it is to determine whether the facts of the case match the law, not to decide if the law itself is fair or correct. I can believe prostitution should be legal but, while it is illegal, decide that a prostitute broke the law engaging in prostitution."
"I may disagree with some gun laws but, if someone is held in violation of that law, I can still agree that the defendant violated the law, which is generally what the jury is being asked to decide."
"If the author wants to *change* the laws, he should run for office."
------------------------
I guess Mr. Li's mistake was not running for Central Committee office. With a prospective juror pool like this, we may as well be ruled by a Central Committee, too.
Cordially,
What law? You don't even know what you're talking about.
But thanks for exposing yourself.