rrufff, John is not talking about jury nullification, nor was I. Either you are making a straw horse in order to knock it down or are missing the point completely. The point is that while laws on the surface seem like they are black or white, they are all based on context and thus open to interpretation. In fact, you totally defeat your own argument when you write "c) if they find that the defendant did, in fact, break that law which applies to him..." That's the very definition of interpretation.
At some point there was probably a simple law that said you couldn't kill someone. Then, over time, we got different degrees of murder, as well as the crime of manslaughter. At some point someone must have argued that he killed someone in self-defense and the jury must have said, hey, that's a good excuse, and hence let him off. At some point other juries began considering whether abortion and mercy killings should be considered a form of murder. What about praying instead of providing your child with medicine known to cure a disease? I think you get the picture.
As pertains to the Elgindy trial, according to Prof. Peter J. Henning, no cases brought under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 "involved a criminal prosecution, and it will be interesting to see if the U.S. Attorney can establish a market manipulation case based on use of truthful information." (see: Message 20773757 ) So it appears this jury will be breaking new ground here. That's what makes this case so interesting.
- Jeff |
