My understanding of "jury nullification" is that a jury can determine someone is guilty according to the law and the evidence, but find them not guilty because they believe the law is wrong. I don't believe it can be used to find a defendant guilty where both the law and the evidence indicate that they're not guilty.
Common sense says the latter would guarantee an appeal. On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:28 PM, M Christol wrote: > I didn't watch the video or follow the link but isn't there an issue of it > being some kind of court for jury nullification to prevail? > > On 4/20/12 4:23 PM, Mugsy Lunsford wrote: >> Had I known about this, at least one young man might have had a different >> situation in life, no telling what else may exist in terms of jury >> decision-making, which is not widely known due to similar silencing. I think >> that judges should be required to inform the jury about this, and any other >> silenced rulings, if they would affect a decision. It's also quite >> intriguing that Kentucky seems to be the one state where folks know about >> jury nullification. >> >> http://www.classwarfareexists.com/judge-advocating-jury-nullification-is-not-a-crime/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
