The juror and the judge differed on a constitutional interpretation. The judge, by virtue of the power vested in his position, won. The question remains, in a debate over the law and constitution, without far reaching precedent to predetermine the answer, who would win the argument? After all, imagine that you were handed a copy of the federal constitution and asked to justify a federal law against drug distribution. Would your first answer be that it was valid because it affects commerce? Honestly?
Of course, the commentary descends into an argument over the wonderfulness of jury nullification which I've addressed over at CLTV here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular entries
-
" I didn't drink! I was kissing a boy who was drunk! "
-
Now, here's a tactic I've not yet seen in court (not sure this one will work for us guys).
-
An entire room dedicated to him at the prosecutor's office and "the alleged scam actually would be his third in a decade operated o...
-
1) Interior Minister Prince Naif yesterday urged everybody to cooperate in the Kingdom's fight against drugs. "Drugs are more dange...
-
Michigan v. Bryant , FEB11, USSC No. 09–150: Opinion: Sotomayor (1) Statements made when questioned by police are non-testimonial when circu...
-
Remind me to close up my er . . . not take up spamming .
-
On video, no less .
-
As part of my vacation I've been running around getting pictures of some of the local courthouses in Kentucky. Most of them I got on my ...
-
It's done. Florida has created a martyr .