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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Sladek who wrote (979)	12/19/2004 11:34:11 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5425

Slaydick - your post is an example of the internet leading to experts who have a little knowledge and you know what they say about the danger of "a little knowledge." I posted that there are volumes written on "jury nullification," and you can find excellent arguments on the merits or lack thereof, but very little on practical application. Go back to google and you will find some equally compelling arguments that talk about chaos and other reasons for not having the jury nullify the law in our system. Again, this would be theory and what the readers here want to see is how this applies to the case we have been discussing. Rarely is there a very clearly successful case of jury nullification happening in reality in a real court. I know you would like to go far afield but keeping the discussion somewhat on point here, let's try to see how this may be related to the Elgindy trial. "Simply" stated - the jury will be asked to find if the defendant extorted OR if he violated criminal statutes by virtue of facts (that the jury will be asked to decide), then they will be instructed to find the defendant guilty. If they don't find the facts or if they find that the law does not apply, as a matter of fact, to the defendant for some reason, then they will be instructed to find the defendant innocent. Despite what you may dream, the jury will NOT be told that even a) if they find that the defendant acted as claimed by the government and b) if they find, as a matter of fact, that the law applies to the defendant, and c) if they find that the defendant did, in fact, break that law which applies to him, that they can disregard all of these findings because he did "good" or that he was outing scams, or that he helped the SEC, etc. I know you'd love to have this be the way things happen, but that's because of your usual ignorance of the subject matter. Lawyers have tried to sneak these arguments and suggestions to juries, particularly in some capital murder cases, but have rarely been successful and often risk the ire of the court. So - you cited some excellent opinion and did a much better job than you usually do in obfuscation. However, even you must realize that your argument fails when we look at the case. In other words, you read passages as a historian but not as someone who has the ability to think. Why am I not surprised? Next case! LOL