From: "Jim McAllister", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From the limited Court reports I've heard, I think the jury
reached the
correct decision ACCORDING TO LAW. The jury is sworn to try the
man
according to law, that is, according to how the law *is*, not how
it
could be or should be or ought to be.
While I agree with most of what Jonathan says about the
procedure in this case I do have one query.
Is it in fact correct that a jury in English law must judge
according to the law? My understanding is that the jury are
entitled to judge both the facts and the law its self. In other
words the jury can decide that the law is wrong and refuse to
convict.
==
As I understand it, it is the judges job to determine the law and the jury's
job to decide on the facts of the case. The jury can always say "not guilty"
based on the facts presented to them. By the sound of things, this jury
wanted to find him guilty ofa lesser charge than murder but were prevented
from doing so. Can anyone confirm this?
Jim
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
