Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Your Rights Online News

ElcomSoft Jury Denied Access to full DMCA Text 172

Posted by timothy from the yours-is-not-to-wonder-why dept.
ryochiji writes "Wired Online is reporting in this article that the jury in the ElcomSoft trial requested access 'to the full copy of the DMCA to assist in their decision-making' but was declined. 'Instead, [Judge] Whyte said he would answer specific questions jurors had about portions of the law they must consider in determining ElcomSoft's guilt or innocence.' I don't know if this is common practice in the court of law, but it somehow doesn't sound right ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ElcomSoft Jury Denied Access to full DMCA Text More

ElcomSoft Jury Denied Access to full DMCA Text

Comments Filter:

  • It isn't that uncommon... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @08:44PM (#4903255) Journal

    ...it's generally done on the grounds that the law is so obtuse that the average juror wouldn't understand it...

    Kind of makes you wonder why they don't simplify the law a little, don't it?

    • its one thing to answer questions when directly asked (the jury asks the judge and he answers).

      its quite another to DENY the text of the law to ANY CITIZEN if s/he requests it.

      I know, the law, in this case, is 100 pages long and I assume the judge is trying to save time since the jury probably won't be 'smart' enough to understand the text.

      still, its very wrong to deny the text to them.
    • It could be that (I'm not following the case) the Elcommsoft people are making a claim that the DMCA is a bogus piece of legislation or something. While I certainly feel for them, the job of the jury is not to evaluate the worth of the DMCA (I know someone's going to bring up jury nullification here, but that's insanely rare). The judge may be trying to prevent Elcommsoft from moving the emphasis from their guilt under the existing, passed-into-legislation law (which is what is at issue) to whether that law is just or constitutional or something (which is for the Supreme Court to decide, not the jury).

      Go figure.
      • jury nullification is rare since most citizens don't KNOW about it. and I read that lawyers are, for all practical purposes, BANNED from even telling jurors they have this basic right.

        jury nullifcation is one of the most important things I've ever learned about our (US) legal system. its a shame its down-played so much. it gives SOME balance of power back to the jury instead of it being a bunch of pawns, which is what many judges seem to want.

      • Re:May be to keep the jury on topic (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @11:25PM (#4904388) Homepage
        You might want to look up the Peter Zenger case. The entire principle of press freedom was established via a case of jury nullification. The jury has a right to decide on both the facts and the law.

        I've been called for jury duty in both NY and IL. Interestingly, in NY, they played a tape that went over the Peter Zenger case and its importance (though they did not use the words jury nullification). Then again, in answering the judge's question I answered that yes, I would nullify if I felt it was called for. The judge and both attorney's pulled me aside, grilled me to abandon my position and when I wouldn't, the judge used his option to disqualify me from trial.

        In Illinois, there was no mention of jury nullification or the Zenger case, the judge went temporarily off the record and stated to the jury that they were not to judge the law (it was the only time during the proceedings he went off record). I again answered the question that yes, I would nullify but this time was not disqualified (perhaps the judge did not notice, perhaps not, he was asking us in a group of 12 to simultaneously answer). I ended up being jury foreman and we unanimously acquited (though not on nullification grounds the law was fine, the guy just wasn't guilty).

        Well, that's my own personal experience. I hope it corrects your impression that the law is not up to the jury to decide. It is and it always has been.
      • you make good points. not only is it to keep the jury on target but also, in appending to that is this tidbit:

        The Jury's job is to evaluate the material presented to them. I've served jury duty, and we really wanted to know more about a certain piece of evidence. it probably would have made one side or the other's case. however, that data was not presented, therefore it was "out of bounds". or in other words, if it isn't spoken or presented, and isn't within our reasonable background of knowledge as jurors, then we are not allowed to consider it.

        now, had elcommsoft's defense presented the text of the law, it may have been readable by the jury. (but the judge can deny it. which is a whole other matter)

    • And the average educated person? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by phorm ( 591458 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @11:31PM (#4904430) Journal
      ...it's generally done on the grounds that the law is so obtuse that the average juror wouldn't understand it...

      So if a jury can't understand it enough to render a decision... how is the average person supposed to be able to understand it enough to avoid infringing it?

  • that is unconstitutional (see FIJA.org) (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:02PM (#4903403)
    fija (fully informed juray assoc) says that its NOT the judge's job to interpret the law. even though most judges THINK that's the case.

    in fact, its the SOLE job of the jury to do that. the judge has NO RIGHT to judge the law. that's what the jury is for! in cases where the law is too harsh or should not be applied, the jury has the constitutional right to OVERRIDE ANY LAW IT WISHES on a case by case basis.

    of course any juror who lets on that he KNOWS this will not pass voire dire. catch 22. sigh ;-(

    fija.org is well worth the read. its scary to see which states are fija-friendly and which are not (most are not).
    • Facts are for the jury and law is for the judge; the judges are right about the rule (one would hope!); a constitutional right to invalidate laws does not exist for the jury. FIJA or whoever may disagree and may want to change and perhaps can, but it's not the law. What they propose is a reform, or that current law is wrong, which is their right but a fringe view. (I'm citing federal practice; individual states do have varying practice, as is their right according to their constitutions to evaluate state laws.)

      IAAL FWIW. :)
      • so tell me, then - how is FIJA wrong? I assume you've seen their website?

        according to fija, US juries have the right to judge unjust laws. not just FOLLOW the law blindly but actually OVERRIDE laws.

        IANAL but it seems clear what fija is saying. are you of the view that fija is all wrong? or my understanding of fija is wrong? (fija is not a 'law' but a website that comments on some aspects of the law, from a jury-rights perspective).

        what they say on their website sure sounds right to me (not that that means anything, legally). the checks and balances were put in to protect against unjust laws or cases where a specific instance of a 'crime' is deemed ok, given the circumstances. or, simply just to keep the government in check. the jury is the last stop for The People to have their say. it just makes sense that they'd have the ability to judge laws and not just blindly apply them.

        • I don't have time to review their entire website, but they're clearly stating an aspiration, not the current law. So when they talk of the jury having a right, they're not referring to anything in existing law. From their "about" page: "In particular, FIJA seeks to restore the traditional trial by jury, and protect it from further incursions."

          So they want to "restore the traditional trial by jury" and to prevent "further incursions." In other words, they're activists and would like to promote legislation -- they even have a guide on how to organize your own local reform effort.

          As for whether they're right on the substance, I'll keep my mouth shut. I am after all a member of the conspiracy to deprive juries of their powers. ;-) FIJA is basically right about the checks and balances thing, juries do account for some of the Framers' concerns about the state abusing its powers; however, checks and balances have their limits. Too much power in anyone's hands is bad thing, and a jury is merely a small unaccountable sample of the citiczenry, not their representative. We elect our representatives, but not our juries.

          Also, we already grant juries much more power than many countries, including the British from whom we adopted the system; the jury is a very significant element in the judicial system. I should be careful to point out that the jury right belongs to the defendant, not the jury per se. So more jury power against the state really means more protection to the defendant. A defendant can also choose to waive trial by jury.

          Last, believe me that the constitutionality of laws in taken very seriously by the judiciary. Although the courts are or course not perfect, they are independent and do not act as rubber stamps for the legislature. Again in the UK, courts generally can't question the propriety of a law at all -- there is no so-called judicial review IIRC.

          • Re:that is unconstitutional (see FIJA.org) (Score:4, Interesting)

            by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @11:52PM (#4904548) Homepage
            As was previously noted (thanks zeugma-amp), US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972) and US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969) both establish that juries have a right to nullify. Are you aware of any superior court which overturned these opinions or any actual case law subsequent to these decisions that overturned them?

            If not, then jury nullification is as much the law of the land as any other judicial decision.

            FIJA is something like the defense of marriage act. Nobody is claiming that marriage is anything other than between a man and a woman under current law yet the Congress passed such a law.
            • Wrong. [slashdot.org]

              I don't know the holdings in Dougherty and Moylan -- but note that neither is a Supreme Court decision (F.2d is wrong reporter). I need access to the full original text to give an opinion. Moylan is 4th Cir. and apparently held that juries do have the power to nullify but because it is unlawful the defense attorney is prohibited from the jury to nullify. Logical.

              Before you cite Sparf, 156 U.S. 51, 101-02 (1895), which the numerous pro-nullification sites bizarrely rely upon:
              Public and private safety alike would be in peril if the principle be established that juries in criminal cases may, of right, disregard the law as expounded to them by the court, and become a law unto themselves. . . . We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court, and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence.
              • "I need access to the full original text to give an opinion."

                I just checked with the judge. He said you can't have access to the full text :-)

                • Good one! :)

                  But I'm a lawyer not a juror, damn it! If I were a juror I would meeky eat my jury instructions kibble. Although I could "cheat" unless sequestered, I wouldn't.

                  I've never served on a jury, and now anticipate it with a sort of mute horror. With luck, it will be a nice boring case with nice boring jurors. Without luck...

                  Stay tuned, literally, PBS's Frontline may tape jury deliberations in a TX capital case, if it is approved. I don't think it will be approved, but it would be interesting.
                  • Frontline may tape jury deliberations in a TX capital case, if it is approved. I don't think it will be approved, but it would be interesting.

                    Yike! It would be cool to watch, but I sure hope they wouldn't record it in the first place without unanimous consent from the jurors.

                    Hmmm, now that I think about it, it should require consent from the defendant too. I can't think of any reason it would need consent from the prosecution, but there may be something I didn't think of.

                    -
                    • Yes, they're thinking the same things as you.

                      Guess who opposes it? The prosecutor. [current.org]

                      Texas is #1 in U.S. executions [pbs.org] and so is of particular interest for a capital trial. The show is the kind of thing I'd like to see, and Frontline is pretty level-headed, but not if it were possibly damaging to a life/death decision. So I'd like to see it but don't think they should do it. :)

                      Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan 15 [findlaw.com].
                    • I read the link "Prosecutors appeal taping in Texas jury room".

                      Very interesting.

                      From the article it is unclear if they are considering asking potential jurors first and then only selecting those who are willing. That doesn't sound good to me. They should only go ahead with it if it does not affect the regular process, and that would affect it.

                      FWIW, it seems to me the way it might be OK to go ahead with it would be to select the jury first and ask if they consent second.

                      I would give the defendant, jurors, and judge unquestioned veto power. Run the case exactly as normal, and if any of them says "No thanx" then don't set up the cameras.

                      It might also be a good idea to give them all veto power in the middle of the process to stop the cameras after the recording has started. That could simply halt the recording, or it could be retroactive and cause the tapes to be destroyed unviewed.

                      Again, I can't really see a good reason for the prosecution to have veto power. If the prosecution has a legitimate objection he ask the judge to use his veto.

                      -
      • Facts are for the jury and law is for the judge

        I just re-read your statement and I'm sorry, but I find that totally unacceptable and others should too.

        I know you are the lawyer and I'm not, but can you back up your statement? I'd find it very interesting if you could. where in the body of US laws does it specifically state that the jury CANNOT interpret and judge the laws if they so choose to?

        • IAANAL...

          I know you are the lawyer and I'm not, but can you back up your statement? I'd find it very interesting if you could. where in the body of US laws does it specifically state that the jury CANNOT interpret and judge the laws if they so choose to?

          The jury can go right ahead and do just about whatever they want to. But it's the judge who issues court orders, including the ones that let the sitting jury leave... and AFAIK, judges can and do declare mistrials when juries decide that they're suddenly a direct democracy with the full rule of law in front of them.

          The purpose of the jury is to have common citizens, who have no stake in the outcome of a case in any manner whatsoever, be the ones deciding facts. Once those facts are done, it's the judiciary's job to interpret how the law applies to the facts.

          Sure, there's a whole bunch of overlap, but this is the basic distinction.
          • There has been actual US case law cited in this thread stating that juries have the right to nullify and none cited that they do not. Doesn't that put the burden of proof on those who deny jury nullification to come up with some real documentation supporting their position?
        • I'm not finding fault with your gut reaction, but the rule stated is so basic I don't even know where to look it up! There is a third flavor, incidentally, called "mixed questions of law and fact."

          I think you can find what you need in the rules of criminal procedure [cornell.edu]. The Cornell (where I went to school) site has ample links to the landmark cases and other materials.
      • Here is an account of the Zenger trial [umkc.edu]. I highly recommend it and if you read the account carefully, you will find that no matter how 'fringe' a view jury nullification is without a doubt deeply embedded in the idea of the american jury trial.
        • An anecdotal account is interesting, but case law controls. Nullification may be "deeply embedded" in the American concept of jury but it is emphatically not a right of the juror. I posted [slashdot.org] a discussion and lengthy quote illustrating the state of the law.

          I do know what the law is here, but not whether it should be something different, and I don't advocate the ideal system. Jury nullification is a clear example of a double-edged sword that works both for good and bad. There is no way to extinguish it fully, and it must be treated with the utmost suspicion.
      • a constitutional right to invalidate laws does not exist for the jury.

        And as far as I can tell FIJA never makes that claim.

        They say that the jury has absolute and final authority to deny conviction in a single case against a single defendant. That is not invalidating the law, that is declining to punish an individual.

        Nullifacation can only "invalidate" a law if EVERY jury unanimously refuses to convict. And if that happens there's either a major problem with the law or a major problem with the judicial process.

        I think it is one of the best examples of checks and balances you'll find. Their power is INSANELY narrow, but what power they do have is total and final (if all 12 jurors agree). If the rest of the judicial system works properly then juror power is exceedingly unlikely to cause any harm, and the possible harm is very limited.

        As for weather the jury has a "right" to nullifacation, FIJA addresses that beautifully. The point is moot. The courts recognize that juries have the POWER to do so. That once done it cannot be challenged. And that juries cannot be punished for doing so.

        You can do it and it's not a crime. Sounds like a right to me, but I won't bother arguing if you'd rather call it a power.

        So it seems to me that it is perfectly legal, unless you pass a law against it. And you should think VERY CAREFULLY about that - a law making it a crime to vote not guilty. I find that to be one hell of a scary idea. I hope it scares you too.

        -
        • Maybe it is semantics, but a law the jury refuses to enforce is no law at all. Regardless, the jury does not have that right, except in the abstract.

          FIJA is very misinformed and misinforming. The "power" argument is like saying I have the "power" to steal bread with my invisibility cloak. OK, true as a matter of fact not law, because no one can catch me. Is the point that stealing is not my right then "moot"?

          If even mentioning this supposed power during voir dire or during deliberations gets to booted off the jury, what kind of power is that? In truth, nullification is an abuse that it would be more damaging to root out that to try to discourage. Not much of an endorsement.

          Do read through the other stuff I dug up and posted, particularly the 2nd Circuit decision I blockquoted. These other sources are probably more lucid than I.
  • The jury isn't being asked to decide whether or not the law is ok. They are being asked to decide whether or not Elcomsoft violated the law.

    It is obvious that, in order to do so, they should have access to the law, and legal experts who can interpret it for them.

    Denying them access to the full text of the law prevents them from adequately doing their job. Jurrors should not have to trust that what the judge says is true -- judges can, and do, have bias, and will instruct juries so as to influence the outcome.

    If the jury isn't allowed access to the full text of the law, the only justification can be that the law is too poorly written for them to understand, in which case the law should be struck down by a higher court. Giving them access to the text of the law (and highlighting relevant portions, so they don't focus on irrelevant one's, such as the portions of the DMCA dealing with VCR's) aids in their ability to decide whether or not Elcomsoft violated the DMCA. They will still not be deciding whether or not the law is okay, because that's not what they've been instructed to do.

    It is entirely inappropriate and wrong that they be denied the full text of the DMCA.

    Btw, this article was completely wrong. The DMCA is most certainly not 100 pages long. Its entire text, in PDF format, is exactly 59 pages long. The court could provide copies of it with relevant portions highlighted, as well as a written guide to the law. The simple fact that the law is so long and obtuse is obviously one strike against it, but never-the-less.

    It is, of course, absurd to ask the jury to make a decision about whether or not Elcomsoft violated the DMCA, when they only have access to secondary data regarding the DMCA. They need access to the primary document -- the DMCA itself. Asking them to decide whether the DMCA was violated based on secondary sources of information would be like me, a scientist, citing a review article for a pertinent fact instead of reading the primary research and citing that. It introduces an extra unnecessary step of error. Imagine me saying several sentences to you and then you relaying it to someone else: there will certainly be error.
    • You are technically correct in that the judge is not asking them to judge the law. However as has been cited elsewhere in the thread, both by historical and judicial precedent juries have the right and duty to judge the law irrespective of the instructions the judge gives them.
    • It is obvious that, in order to do so, they should have access to the law, and legal experts who can interpret it for them.

      Denying them access to the full text of the law prevents them from adequately doing their job. Jurrors should not have to trust that what the judge says is true -- judges can, and do, have bias, and will instruct juries so as to influence the outcome.

      While I agree with your general point, I must point out the irony here. Jurors are expected to apply the law to the facts, yet we have somehow managed to build a system where at least the perception is that the law must be interpreted by some "special" class of citizens. Ordinary folk are not qualified.

      If the law is too complicated for a citizen to understand, how can they possibly be expected to abide by it, let alone judge if others have?

      I found the first quote on fija's page sufficient:

      • "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

        Thomas Jefferson, 1789

      If Mr. Jefferson believed that the jury is the mechanism to hold the government's feet to the fire, then that implies that the law must be understandable to those responsible for holding the government in check; it's citizens. Granting the opinions of judges and lawyers some special status above that of the jury is to abandon the responsibilities of citizenship. If a judge becomes a party to denying citizens' right to know the law, he should be impeached for failure to uphold his oath to protect the Constitution.

  • This is common, but lots of people don't like it.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by waytoomuchcoffee ( 263275 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:11PM (#4903483)
    In California, the judge usually instructs jurors:

    ""It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you. You are to be governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial, and the law as stated to you by me."

    What gets into the "official" instructions (usually typed up and given to the foreman) only occurs after a big battle with both sides' lawyers. The jury doesn't see this battle. Lots of stuff is thrown out because of rules of evidence, among other things.

    However, the judge also doesn't want jury nullification -- basically, a juror disagreeing with the law. This is legal, but they will never tell you about it.
    • This is legal, but they will never tell you about it.

      Could someone please explain what stops the defence or one of the witnesses from telling the jury about nullification. Is there some law of evidence that would prevent this.

      On a more general note, are there any restrictions on what a defendant can say in court to defend himself. Obviously he can't lie, since that would be perjury and he can't make threats "My brother knows where you live etc etc" since that would be jury knobbling. But if everything he says can be demonstrated to be true then is he committing any crime by saying whatever he wants?

      Does anyone know what the laws are in European courts in respect of this area?

      Finaly, I have to say that if I was on a jury and the judge started saying that we couldn't have access to certain information or evidence then I would immediately conclude that he was conspiring with the state to secure the prosecution of an innocent defendent and almost certainly aquit. But then perhaps I am wierd.

      • I would immediately conclude that he was conspiring with the state to secure the prosecution of an innocent defendent

        We're on the same side, but I think you went way too far with that assumption. It isn't exactly unusual for evidence of GUILT to be excluded. At least not in the US.

        -
      • Well, again in California, the judge can cite someone with contempt of court if they tell about nullification.

        There was recently a case where the judge kicked a juror off a case (while the jury was in session and debating), because the juror was arguing for nullification. Seems that while it is illegal to "bug" or listen in to the jury (the US already tried this), there is now a law that judges can put into the instructions, that states when someone is trying to argue outside the law the rest of the juror have to turn them in! So this person was turned in, and kicked off.
        • So, in a country where it is apparently illegal for juror A to tell juror B something which is absolutely true about the nations legal system, how many people still think that they are living somewhere with a free and fair system of criminal justice?

          To put it another way. Most folks on Slashdot think that most legal systems are unfair and basically corrupt, but what about Joe Sixpack? If you succeeded in explaining this to him would he be appalled or just go "Gee man, seems fair enough to me!"?

          BTW, I am fairly certain that the above could not happen in the UK courts. We have exceptionally strong laws about jury secrecy. No-one is allowed to talk about what was said in the jury room or make any attempt to find out, even years after the trial has ended

  • Jury nullification rights (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <`dh003i' `at' `gmail.com'> on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:43PM (#4903700) Homepage Journal
    Facts:
    • As someone else here pointed out, the jury has the right to acquit on the grounds that it disagrees with the law, referred to as jury nullification. This is where the jury will not convict a man because they deem the law to be unjust and wrong.


    • Jury nullification has been used for both good and bad. It was used to acquit "fugitive slaves" who had escaped their owners. More recently, it was used to erroneously acquit OJ Simpson. The important thing is that jury nullification is the last check on government power, which forces the government to obey its own constitution.

      Despite this, the courts have (unconstitutionally) refused to inform juries of their nullification rights.

    Quotes:
    • Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong. -- Alexander Hamilton, 1804

      It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court. --John Adams, 1771

      I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1789

      It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their choice, if the laws are so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they... undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow. -- James Madison
    Links:
    • Jury nullification has been used for both good and bad. It was used to acquit "fugitive slaves" who had escaped their owners. More recently, it was used to erroneously acquit OJ Simpson. The important thing is that jury nullification is the last check on government power, which forces the government to obey its own constitution

      While your right on about jury nullification, the OJ case is not one that was a case of jury nullification. He wasn't acquitted because the jury disagreed with the law (you'd have a hard time finding people who think it is a bad law to punish someone for murdering people). He was acquitted because the police botched some evidence, which threw the rest of the evidence into question, and Mark Furman fabricated and falsified his testimoney and evidence, further throwing the entire investigation into question. He didn't get off because the jury didn;t like the law, but because the police botched the case something horrible.

  • Apparently... (Score:5, Funny)

    by darkov ( 261309 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:45PM (#4903721)
    Reading the DMCA may reveal (obvious) flaws in the law thus providing ways to work around the intended restrictive aspects it seeks to introduce. Therefore the written law represents a circumvention device and it's distribution is illegal.

    Simple, really.

  • Public documents? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:12PM (#4903958) Homepage
    Perhaps I am naive, but aren't these public documents? Is there something that prevents a juror from going to Google [google.com] and doing a search for "DMCA Full Text" [google.com] and viewing the PDF themselves? Or walking to the local courthouse (geez, they are even in one already!) and grabbing a paper copy during lunch?

    • Re:Public documents? (Score:3, Informative)

      by dbrutus ( 71639 )
      It depends on what kind of jury trial this is. If they're sequestered, they don't have access to newspapers or pretty much any other news source and they are subject to criminal penalties for acting as fact gatherers.

  • New slashdot motto (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Badger ( 1280 ) on Tuesday December 17, 2002 @02:22AM (#4905403)
    I think "IANAL" should be branded at the bottom of every Slashdot post from now on.

    The judge isn't refusing the jury's request because he's a pawn of the trilateral commission that's trying to brainwash the world. He's just trying to keep the jury's deliberations short, on point, and nonreversable. If the jury spends three days trying to interpret law, and comes back with some wacked out decision that's impossible under the law, then this trial was a complete waste of time.

    Better for the jury to ask direct, relevant questions to the judge that he can answer on point than spend days trying to understand ever minor point in the entire law.
    • I wouldn't give a shit.

      If I was determining someone's fate (particuarly jail time), I would want to know as much as possible.

      If the judge denied me that (and I thought that I needed that to make an informed decision), I'd have no choice but to consider the defendant NOT GUILTY.

    • It's up the jury to decide guilt or innocence according to the law (and to throw out the law if it's wrong, but there are better comments on jury nullification nearby). If the jury's sole information about the law must come through the judge, it is essentially the judge who makes the decision by deciding what to present to the jury and how.
  • ...I would just refuse to find him guilty until I had a complete copy in front of me for my own perusal.

    (BTW, if someone told the judge that, could they be held in contempt of court?)

  • Can't remember where I heard/read this... if anyone has a link to this story please post it. I will attempt a paraphrased version...

    -----------
    Pheonix, Arizona.

    A woman's son is on trial for a drug crime that is over 10 years old, and he may go to jail for an unreasonably long time if the jury condemns him based on the "judges instructions" for how they must apply the law.

    The woman prints out hundreds of yellow papers with information on "jury nullification" where it states that a jury can decide that a law is not valid and therefore aquit whomever they want for no reason other than common sense and their own will.

    She put these papers in the windows of all the cars in the parking lots of the court house. Hoping that her son's jury would find them and read them, and aquit her son on charges that were not reasonable, out of date or whatever (as I don't recall all the details of the story forgive the fudging here)

    The FBI arrests her for doing this and brings her to court to throw her in jail. But as irony works out they can't show the evidence to the jury because it would inform them of their rights to "jury nullification". So the FBI dropped the charges against her. :)

    --------------

    -v
  • Let's hope the prosecution appeals based on this, so the case can make it to the Supremes [dianaross.com].

Slashdot Top Deals

What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?

Close