Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lawdog who wrote (103483)	12/6/2000 5:03:50 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

As it relates to juries nullifying law, or qualified jurists nullifying law? LoF

To: lawdog who wrote (103483)	12/6/2000 5:05:23 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Then, recommending trial by jury to the French in 1789, Jefferson wrote to Tom Paine, "I consider... as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution...." One may say that Jefferson is not talking about nullification, but just about a jury taking the interpretation of the law into its own hands--though that is already well beyond what a jury is allowed to do now, especially if a jury undertook to apply its own interpretation of the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, we have the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, in Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972, saying: [The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law. I personally agree with this, .....are you seeking to make an analogy?