John,
Thanks for clearing that up. Now I think I know who said what. My first understanding was correct. And my emails are arriving again, so let's try to resume. I understand your push to argue law before jurors for purposes of assuring and educating them, but I am not sure I understand your skepticism against promoting further publicity of FIJA-type jury nullification. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, even after successful arguments of unconstitutionality by the defense, in order for the jury to actually delete the longstanding unconstitutional legislation at hand, a nullification vote of acquittal would still be required. Am I thinking straight? -Mark _____ 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. _____ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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/
