 | | Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) Doesn't this demand that each member of the jury be conversant with the (possibly very obscure) laws? How can one's "peers" be expected at any time, for instance, to be trusted to interpret the particulars of laws they might never previously (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Richard Marchetti
| | | | | | (...) Nope. The Founder Fathers thought they could trust the average venireman to judge both facts and law, no complicated understanding was supposed to be needed -- and if it were, perhaps it was not a very good law such that people could (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | | (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) It doesn't require apriori knowledge, just willingness to examine the law, and decide if it's a just law or not. (...) Defacto you are correct, in most cases this is what happens. Dejure you are wrong, common law (and case law if you can find (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
