|
|
Posted by Paul Hyett on 11/06/06 18:47
In rec.video.dvd.tech on Mon, 6 Nov 2006, PTravel wrote :
>> 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.
But the fact remains - if they don't, there's sod-all the judge can do
about it, because they have done nothing illegal. I assume you checked
that William Penn link I posted?
>>
>> 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.
I'm sure Citizen Bob realises which case I'm alluding to - that of Tony
Martin.
>
>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.
Did any of the defendants in the cases you were involved in *not* get
the chair (even if they were just tried for fine-defaulting)... :)
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|