|
|
Posted by PTravel on 11/06/06 15:14
"Paul Hyett" <pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZMdQXeIbvtTFFwF1@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In rec.video.dvd.tech on Sun, 5 Nov 2006, PTravel wrote :
>
>>> A juror can vote however they want to and can't be coerced
>>> into voting any specific way.
>>
>>Quite right. And a juror also takes an oath to follow the instructions of
>>the judge when it comes to the law.
>
> No they don't. The oath is for them to decide guilt or innocence on the
> evidence presented, subject to their own judgement.
Yes, they do. I won't have time this week but, assuming this discussion is
still civil, I'll post the actual jury instruction.
>
>> When he violates that oath, he violates
>>the law.
>
> Rubbish!
Fraid not.
>>>
>>> What are you basing your belief on this being illegal?
>>
>>On the legal requirement that jurors follow the judge's instructions as to
>>the law, as well as 16 years experience as a trial lawyer.
>>
> The whole point of juries is that they are *not* legal experts, and
> therefore not subject to potential political pressure to get the verdict
> the state wants.
That's right -- they're not legal experts, which is why the judge gives them
extensive instruction as to what is the applicable law, and why they are
required to follow the judge's instructions.
>>>
>>> Actually, the reason to have a jury is so that it is the person's
>>> "peers" who are making the final judgement and not the
>>> government.
>>
>>The peers make a factual judgment, only, i.e. did the accused engage in
>>specific conduct or not. The peers do not make a legal, ethical or moral
>>judgment as to whether a specific law should be enforced or not.
>
> Yes they do - that's the whole point of having juries in the first place!
Sorry, but that's incorrect.
>
> If you were on a case where a homeowner was charged with murder for
> killing a violent intruder in self-defence, whose side would you be on?
I don't know. I have no idea of the facts. If they demonstrated that the
homeowner had a reasonable apprehension of imminent violent bodily harm (or
whatever the specific instruction provided by the judge was), then I'd find
for the homeowner.
>
> If I didn't know better, I could easily believe you have no legal
> knowledge whatsoever, given your lack of understanding of the jury's role.
Yes, that's right. I have no legal knowledge whatsoever. That's how I was
able to conduct all those jury trials all these years.
> --
> Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|