[trebb]

"The case was believed to be the first its kind and legal experts speculated it could set a precedent if the jury found the defendant criminally liable."

Does this mean that juries can write/interpret law? I thought you could only convict a person if there was a standing law you could accuse him of breaking and that the law had to be presented to the jury so they understood "the letter" of it...

[tpaine]

southern rock:
"The case was believed to be the first its kind and legal experts speculated it could set a precedent if the jury found the defendant criminally liable."


Does this mean that juries can write/interpret law? I thought you could only convict a person if there was a standing law you could accuse him of breaking and that the law had to be presented to the jury so they understood "the letter" of it...
8 - trebb
_________________________________

The jury 'instruction' system is at the heart of this travesty.
-- Jurys should hear ~unrestricted~ arguments as to both law & facts from both sides, & then be instructed by the judge as to their ability to nullify the strict application of law in the case at hand.
Instead, the constitutional right to an impartial jury is violated by instructions that claim they MUST follow the letter of the law.
This is NOT 'due process', just for starters.