Subject:
|
Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2001 22:48:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1063 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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)?
It doesn't require apriori knowledge, just willingness to examine the law,
and decide if it's a just law or not.
> 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!
Defacto you are correct, in most cases this is what happens. Dejure you are
wrong, common law (and case law if you can find it) is clear. Judges are
giving unlawful instructions on a consistent basis. Hop-Frog has given an
excellent reference to go read about this (we've talked about FIJA a bit in
the past but it was long ago).
I am proud to say that I have been hassled (but not busted) by the cops for
passing out FIJA literature in front of a courthouse (but not to people
wearing yellow buttons, those are jurors and you can get busted for that
pretty fast).
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
