[Peace-discuss] Jury Nullification

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

I think that Carl is essentially right.  I read it to mean that the jury
finds that the application of the law (whatever the interpretation of that
law or the literal correctness of its application) in the particular case at
hand will result in injustice such that the jury refuses to apply that law
in this case and finds the defendant not guilty.

-----Original Message-----
From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:48 AM
To: Ron Szoke
Cc: LAURIE SOLOMON; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Jury Nullification

I don't think that nullification means that the law has been misinterpreted
or 
misapplied -- just that the law (accurately interpreted and applied) leads
*in 
this case* to injustice.  (The question is left open whether there are other

cases where it would not lead to injustice.)

If the law is simply misinterpreted or misapplied -- it doesn't include the 
drug, the possession of which the defendant is charged with, say -- then
that 
alone requires acquittal, with no notion of nullification. --CGE

Ron Szoke wrote:
> There seems to be some vagueness here about what "jury nullification"
actually 
> means.  It seems to me that it does not  in any way erase or invalidate
the law 
> itself, but is a holding that the law has been misinterpreted or
misapplied in a 
> particular case  -- which the jury, as the trier of fact, can so
determine.  The law 
> still stands & remains in force, waiting to be applied or misapplied to
the next 
> case,  right?
> 
> That the jury is also the trier of law -- the legal norm alleged to apply
to the case 
> -- repeatedly appears in the statutes, but is obscure to me.  What does
THAT 
> mean?
> 
> -- Ron
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss