Jon,
I am reposting this for your response. Thanks, -Mark _____ From: mark robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:56 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: [Libertarian] Fw: Re: Does FIJA Still Exist? Jon, More "power" to you. I hope you get it done. Now back to the beginning. Is my signature not in line with the FIJA literature? I hate to be a pest, but could you further explain your disagreement with it by directly rebutting/editing the parts you don't like? It's important that it's accurate. -Mark {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the law the defendant allegedly violated, no matter the evidence. There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a unanimous verdict. Get on a jury and help fulfill its other original purpose: to counteract unconstitutional / oppressive government legislation. See www.fija.org . [Please adopt this as your own signature.]} _____ Actually, I am promoting both, with the intention of using each to leverage the other. What I seek is a precedent that it is okay to argue the law in the presence of the jury. Once that precedent is set, anywhere, suddenly defense lawyers everywhere are going to be demanding to expand on it, and get a few more precedents. At the same time, if the word gets out to enough of the public that when they serve on a jury and when they do they should expect legal argument, when they don't get it at least one will say, "Hey! There hasn't been any legal argument, and when I saw this case presented on TV there was legal argument. What's going on here? Something wrong with this case. I think I better vote to acquit, because I have some real doubts now." Now at no point in all this does any significant part of the public actually learn much about the law, even during trial. All that happens is they learn to expect legal argument, and get suspicious if they don't get it. They might not understand it when they do get it, but they can at least get a sense of what the lawyers are arguing about, and sense when there is real doubt about whether the charge is lawful or not. All the defense has to do is plant doubt in the jurors' minds. They don't have to really understand the legal issues argued before them the way lawyers do. They just have to get a sense that the judge or prosecutor (or even the defense counsel) is trying to put something over on them. They can sense that without legal understanding. All it takes is for them to develop reasonable doubt. Now of course when you propose this to prosecutors or judges (most of whom are former prosecutors), they strongly oppose it, precisely because they know such legal argument will create doubts in the jury. They will argue that it would "confuse" the jury, and, of course, it might. But it would also force the lawyers to bring the law down to the level of the jury, and in the course of doing that, a lot of the sophistry lawyers are fond of using to confuse one another and the judge are likely to fall away. It is not only juries that are susceptible to being confused. I would expect the transitional period after we adopt legal argument to juries would be a bit chaotic until the legal system and the public readjust to the new order, and the popular culture assimilates legal training the way it now assimilates computer training. (Ever notice that when you go to a restaurant today, the changes are good the people on one of the nearest tables are discussing computer subjects. Who woulda thot?) You see, I'm old enough to remember growing up in a small town in Texas when one of the most popular topics of conversation in the barber shop was the latest trial. People would spend hours picking apart every argument and piece of evidence. That doesn't happen anymore, but there is no reason we can't get back to that. Compared to the millions or billions that would have to be spent on educating the public directly, the cost of getting a critical precedent that could get the snowball rolling is within reach, provided enough of us focus on getting that snowball started. -- Jon _____ [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/
