Wanna have a serious conversation about the Constitution?

[nortatoga]

Another link!!

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/supreme/11sup.htm

 

[nortatoga]

As for Jury nullification? Someone is charged with a crime, the Judge instructs the Jury to vote yes or no that the crime was committed (did the accused have 15rd magazines?) That is what they are to vote on! (Yes the accused did or didn't) They are not to vote on the Constitutionality of the law! The law is not on trail here the accused is!

Now if the accused is found guilty of the crime they appeal and then put the law on trial as to being unconstitutional!

Am I wrong?

 

[GOPerfect]

Jury's cannot make/decided the Constitutionality of a law. They can attempt Jury Nullification.
The chance of that doing much is slim. If only one Juror attempts it, all that will happen is a mistrial is called. The accused can face a new trial. The chance of getting all members of a jury to see things like the one is also very slim.

It can happen. A few years ago, I read a story from down south about a guy that had been arrested for murder. As the case went, the accused, a father, hunted down and killed another man. At trial, it came out that the dead guy had killed the accused son, apparently it was a bit brutal. The bad guy was arrested (the one who killed the boy) and was released after a while due to some technicality. I can't remember. Anyway, it took the father a few months to hunt him down. Once the hunt was over, he beat the boys killer to death.

Went through trial, the Jury came back with a not guilty verdict. Basically, the Jury didn't like the way the law was written when applied to this case.

 

[Marine Cpl]

As for Jury nullification? Someone is charged with a crime, the Judge instructs the Jury to vote yes or no that the crime was committed (did the accused have 15rd magazines?) That is what they are to vote on! (Yes the accused did or didn't) They are not to vote on the Constitutionality of the law! The law is not on trail here the accused is!

Now if the accused is found guilty of the crime they appeal and then put the law on trial as to being unconstitutional!

Am I wrong?

Yes. You are wrong. If you go by court rulings like you like to do.

“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence… If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”

—United States v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006.

 

[nortatoga]

Yes. You are wrong. If you go by court rulings like you like to do.

“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence… If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”

—United States v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006.

Yes on Appeal maybe!

 

[GOPerfect]

Yes. You are wrong. If you go by court rulings like you like to do.

“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence… If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”

—United States v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006.

Shame it happens so rarely. Almost nonexistent these days.

 

[Marine Cpl]

“The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts.”

—Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920).

 

[Marine Cpl]

“It is not only his right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

—from the Diary of John Adams, 1771

 

[Marine Cpl]

Shame it happens so rarely. Almost nonexistent these days.

That's because the corrupt judge doesn't instruct the jury that they can do it and the juror is ignorant that he can.

 

[GOPerfect]

That's because the corrupt judge doesn't instruct the jury that they can do it and the juror is ignorant that he can.

They are not required to inform. No Judge ever informed you or I and we know about it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

They are not required to inform. No Judge ever informed you or I and we know about it.

This is true.