Altho the compilation may be possible, it is going to be hard in practice. 1. A jury at most issues a "not guilty" finding. This leaves us guessing as to the basis for the verdict. Maybe they just found there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the facts? Or didn't nullify on the law, but rather because they felt the prosecution was overbearing on the facts?
2. As a practical matter (and I may write a law rev. on this someday, since I profoundly disagree) a court will slap down a counsel who argues, to the jury, that a defendant should be acquitted because the law under which he is charged is unconstitutional. Thus counsel must, at most, give some strong hints, and hope that the jury (without instructions to that effect) gets the idea and acts upon it. Odds of this are not very high, altho it is known to happen. Putting a number on it, in any sense, is hopeless. 3. As mentioned, this is over my disagreement, since (a) I think juries, and for the matter legislatures, take an oath to the contrary, and (b) the reduction of jury trial to "let two guys argue about the evidence" reduces what used to be a great spectacle sport into a rather mundane recitation of evidence. Who would give a hoot about "here is a masterful outline of evidence in an obscure fact pattern by Patrick Henry"? 4. There would be a decent law rev. article on how judges, I believe mostly in the course of the 19th century, gradually curtailed the functions of the jury, even while maintaing the outlines of "trial by jury." E.g., in many early trials there were multiple judges, who on occasion gave inconsistent jury instructions, leaving the jury to sort out whose legal interpretations made the most sense (in the Trial of the Seven Bishops, two judges even got into an argument in front of the jury). _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
