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
-
Now, here's a tactic I've not yet seen in court (not sure this one will work for us guys).
-
According to Computerworld Security, Google has started collecting images of European streets for its Street View feature, but is holding of...
-
April 23, 2004 In this newsletter: T HE COURT DISMISSES CLAIM THAT THE OWNERS OF THE COMEDY CENTRAL INFRINGED RIGHTS WHEN THEY AIRED A CLIP ...
-
Y'know, it's kinda cool that the governor is up on his history, but is contemplating a pardon for Billy the Kid really that importa...
-
The General Assembly has relented and decided to allow us (at least some of us) to have judges again . As of 01 July 2011 we in the 30th wil...
-
With Google's recent launch of Street View in Europe and imminent photographing of Canadian cities, I thought I'd do some quick look...
-
Remind me to close up my er . . . not take up spamming .
-
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...
-
June 14, 2002 WGA UNVEILS NEW LOW BUDGET AGREEMENT The Writers Guild has announced a new agreement for indie films with budgets of $750,000...