Subject:
|
Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2001 22:45:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
938 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > > At that point whip out the FIJA information (from memory, you might
> > > > get arrested if you bring literature in) and share with the rest of the jury
> > > > the duty to judge the *law* as well as the facts.
> >
> > (regardless of the instruction of the judge who will tell to judge only the
> > facts, not the law)
>
> 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 have heard of (forgive the dangling participle)?
> My impression was that the judge is to instruct the jury re: the law in
> question and that the jury is to decide based on the facts how and if the
> law was broken. Please correct me if I am (admittedly very possibly) wrong!
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
| (...) 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)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
