Sorry, I can see how you might get confused, but cleaning it up is too much
trouble. Just count the > chars. Conrad is arguing for jurors not knowing, and
I
am arguing they actually know but aren't sure and are susceptible to herd
pressures that will override what they know unless that is reinforced by
hearing
legal argument. Either way, my case for demanding legal argument before the
jury
stands. That was the standard of due process at the time of the Founding. If
law
is not argued before the jury, it is not a "jury trial" under the Constitution,
if
understood as it was originally meant.
Mark Robert wrote:
> As if it weren't bad enough that my Yahoo groups are getting turned
> off ("bouncing") repeatedly so that I have to go here to the site and
> post (I hate that), NOW I have to try to figure out your posting
> style below. I am absolutely confused over what is your post and what
> is Conrad's. Are YOU the one asserting that most people know about
> jury nullification, or is Conrad? Earlier, the position looked like
> yours, but now you have it looking like Conrad's. Please clarify.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions
for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm
Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
