From: "Alex Holmes", [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 mosst 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.
This doesn't set any precedent for that law but the acquital
stands all the same.
The classic case that comes to mind was the prosecution of
William Penn the Quaker leader for preaching an "illegal" sermon.
The jury acquitted him and refused to change their verdict even
after being imprisoned and starved for days. This led to John
Vaughan the then Chief Justice to intervene and declare "The jury
are perjured if the verdict be against their own judgement,
although by directions of the court, for their oath binds them to
their own judgement."
American case law is also filled with acquittals were the jury
disagreed with the law and refused to convict on that basis.
Maybe some of the legal history brains could comment?
Alex Holmes
RSA
--
There is no requirement that the jury make the decision according to
law, there is the concept of jury nullification. However, it is rare
for it to happen. There was a case of someone chasing down and
killing someone some time ago with a shotgun, and he was found not
guilty, even though the law would essentially have required a
conviction.
Steve.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
