Posted by Paul Hyett on 11/06/06 08:35

In rec.video.dvd.tech on Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Mark Jones wrote :
>PTravel wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>Like I wrote earlier, each juror is free to vote as they see fit,
>for whatever reason they want. The judge and lawyers may
>not like this, but it is in fact the case.
>
>A conviction of a pot grower was recently overturned by a
>federal appeals court because a juror was told that she would
>get in trouble if she didn't follow the judges instructions exactly.

Perhaps 'PTravel' should read up on the famous precedent-setting William
Penn case.

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/penntrial.htm

>Here is what one of the appeals court judges had to say:
>
>"Jurors cannot fairly determine the outcome of a case if they
>believe they will face 'trouble' for a conclusion they reach as
>jurors," said the opinion by Judge Betty Fletcher. "The threat
>of punishment works a coercive influence on the jury's
>independence."

In Britain the conviction wouldn't have been overturned, as jurors are
not allowed to ever discuss what motivated their decision, outside of
the jury room.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

[Back to original message]