You don't see a mayor calling for jury nullification every day

[Philip Chee]

[[
San Diego Mayor Bob Filner has injected himself into a federal criminal
case against the operator of a medical marijuana dispensary,
intensifying his standoff with federal prosecutors on cannabis
enforcement issues.

Filner's urging jurors who'll be chosen for the trial to reject federal
law in favor of state statutes under a centuries-old legal concept known
as “jury nullification"-- whereby jurors can refuse to convict people
under laws they believe should not be applied.

Source:
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Filner-Urges-Jury-Nullification-In-Medical-Pot-Dispensary-Case-208246501.html#ixzz2U7iUA7M5
]]

<http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Filner-Urges-Jury-Nullification-In-Medical-Pot-Dispensary-Case-208246501.html#ixzz2U5CXwvnK>

Phil

--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 23, 9:49 am, Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> [[
> San Diego Mayor Bob Filner has injected himself into a federal criminal
> case against the operator of a medical marijuana dispensary,
> intensifying his standoff with federal prosecutors on cannabis
> enforcement issues.
>
> Filner's urging jurors who'll be chosen for the trial to reject federal
> law in favor of state statutes under a centuries-old legal concept known
> as “jury nullification"-- whereby jurors can refuse to convict people
> under laws they believe should not be applied.
>

> Source:http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Filner-Urges-Jury-Nullification...
> ]]
>
> <http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Filner-Urges-Jury-Nullification...>

I wonder if part of the mayor's oath of office is to 'uphold the laws
of the United States', or just '...of California'? If the former,
perhaps there'll be a call for his removal from office.

pt

[David Friedman]

In article
<19f41f8b-aba9-44c6...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 23, 9:49 am, Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> > [[
> > San Diego Mayor Bob Filner has injected himself into a federal criminal
> > case against the operator of a medical marijuana dispensary,
> > intensifying his standoff with federal prosecutors on cannabis
> > enforcement issues.
> >
> > Filner's urging jurors who'll be chosen for the trial to reject federal
> > law in favor of state statutes under a centuries-old legal concept known

> > as łjury nullification"-- whereby jurors can refuse to convict people

> > under laws they believe should not be applied.
> >
> > Source:http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Filner-Urges-Jury-Nullification
> > ...
> > ]]
> >
> > <http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Filner-Urges-Jury-Nullification...>
>
> I wonder if part of the mayor's oath of office is to 'uphold the laws
> of the United States', or just '...of California'? If the former,
> perhaps there'll be a call for his removal from office.

I'm wondering whether he's an honest man or in search of higher office.
I don't think any national level politician yet has used opposition to
drug laws, in particular marijuana laws, to build support, but at this
point it looks like a niche waiting to be filled.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 23, 12:41 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <19f41f8b-aba9-44c6-90a2-343ae38fa...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 23, 9:49 am, Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> > > [[
> > > San Diego Mayor Bob Filner has injected himself into a federal criminal
> > > case against the operator of a medical marijuana dispensary,
> > > intensifying his standoff with federal prosecutors on cannabis
> > > enforcement issues.
>
> > > Filner's urging jurors who'll be chosen for the trial to reject federal
> > > law in favor of state statutes under a centuries-old legal concept known

> > > as ³jury nullification"-- whereby jurors can refuse to convict people

> > > under laws they believe should not be applied.
>
> > > Source:http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Filner-Urges-Jury-Nullification
> > > ...
> > > ]]
>
> > > <http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Filner-Urges-Jury-Nullification...>
>
> > I wonder if part of the mayor's oath of office is to 'uphold the laws
> > of the United States', or just '...of California'? If the former,
> > perhaps there'll be a call for his removal from office.
>
> I'm wondering whether he's an honest man or in search of higher office.
> I don't think any national level politician yet has used opposition to
> drug laws, in particular marijuana laws, to build support, but at this
> point it looks like a niche waiting to be filled.

I have the impression that US courts are deeply suspicious of juries,
and try to reduce their independence as much as possible. In
particular, judges and lawyers tend to all agree in excluding
potential jurors who exhibit an appreciation of their equal status as
officers of the court, and their right of jury nullification. They
want juries that do what they're told to do.

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:19f41f8b-aba9-44c6...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.c
om:

In San Diego? Yeah, there probably will be. And it will fail.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in
news:ddfr-3AD5B1.0...@news.giganews.com:

> In article
> <19f41f8b-aba9-44c6...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com
> >,
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 23, 9:49�am, Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>> > [[
>> > San Diego Mayor Bob Filner has injected himself into a
>> > federal criminal case against the operator of a medical
>> > marijuana dispensary, intensifying his standoff with federal
>> > prosecutors on cannabis enforcement issues.
>> >
>> > Filner's urging jurors who'll be chosen for the trial to
>> > reject federal law in favor of state statutes under a

>> > centuries-old legal concept known as �jury nullification"--

>> > whereby jurors can refuse to convict people under laws they
>> > believe should not be applied.
>> >
>> > Source:http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Filner-Urges-Jury
>> > -Nullification ...
>> > ]]
>> >
>> > <http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Filner-Urges-Jury-Nulli
>> > fication...>
>>
>> I wonder if part of the mayor's oath of office is to 'uphold
>> the laws of the United States', or just '...of California'? If
>> the former, perhaps there'll be a call for his removal from
>> office.
>
> I'm wondering whether he's an honest man or in search of higher
> office. I don't think any national level politician yet has used
> opposition to drug laws, in particular marijuana laws, to build
> support, but at this point it looks like a niche waiting to be
> filled.
>

It's vaiable in California. Wouldn't help him get elected to the
presidency, but Congress, especially the House, it could work.

But San Diego is a very, very strange place, with a very . . . odd
local government.

[David Friedman]

In article
<97b1fcf4-12f1-4c3d...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have the impression that US courts are deeply suspicious of juries,
> and try to reduce their independence as much as possible. In
> particular, judges and lawyers tend to all agree in excluding
> potential jurors who exhibit an appreciation of their equal status as
> officers of the court, and their right of jury nullification. They
> want juries that do what they're told to do.
>

Yes--I got rejected for jury service when I told the judge (truthfully)
that, for the particular issue of the case, I might not be willing to
decide according to what I was told the law was.

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have the impression that US courts are deeply suspicious of
>> juries, and try to reduce their independence as much as possible.
>> In particular, judges and lawyers tend to all agree in excluding
>> potential jurors who exhibit an appreciation of their equal status
>> as officers of the court, and their right of jury nullification.
>> They want juries that do what they're told to do.

> Yes--I got rejected for jury service when I told the judge
> (truthfully) that, for the particular issue of the case, I might
> not be willing to decide according to what I was told the law was.

Not to mention courts keeping jurors in the dark and feeding them
horse manure.

I've just been reading about the Bill Macumber case. Why did a jury
convict him of first-degree murder when another man made a credible
confession, containing details of the crime not released to the
public, to several people? And when a witness saw that man commit
the murder? And when physical evidence confirmed this? Simple: The
defense wasn't allowed to present any of that testimony to the jury.

"The system worked" in the sense that the truth came out and he was
freed. It only took 38 years in prison and numerous hard-working
unpaid volunteer attorneys. He was freed only after he pled guilty to
second-degree murder while still maintaining his innocence, and being
sentenced to time served. So he's still officially guilty. He could
have held out for another trial, during which he would have remained
locked up for another year or two, and might have been inexplicably
found guilty again. What would you have done?

Like me, his record was otherwise perfectly clean, unlike the record
of the man who confessed (who had long since died in prison while
serving a sentence for an unrelated crime).

Shut it down. Shut down the whole criminal justice system down, free
all prisoners, and clear all records. It's the right thing to do.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> Filner's urging jurors who'll be chosen for the trial to reject
> federal law in favor of state statutes under a centuries-old legal

> concept known as ^[$B!H^[(Bjury nullification"-- whereby jurors

> can refuse to convict people under laws they believe should not be
> applied.

Simply suggesting that to potential jurors makes him guilty of jury
tampering, a felony. Free speech? There's established case law that
that doesn't apply here.

Interesting and unusual mojibake there. That doesn't look like UTF-8
or Big5 cruft, but like good old-fashioned terminal escape sequences,
though not ones familiar to me. How did that happen?

[Philip Chee]

On 24/05/2013 08:07, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:

> Simply suggesting that to potential jurors makes him guilty of jury
> tampering, a felony. Free speech? There's established case law that
> that doesn't apply here.
>
> Interesting and unusual mojibake there. That doesn't look like UTF-8
> or Big5 cruft, but like good old-fashioned terminal escape sequences,
> though not ones familiar to me.

Perhaps your vt420 terminal isn't escape sequence compliant?

> How did that happen?

Your newsreader is broken, that's what happened.

[David Harmon]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:31:54 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,

>Not to mention courts keeping jurors in the dark and feeding them
>horse manure.

If some fact could cause a jury to render a different decision,
that's enough IMO to make suppressing that fact an appealable error
(at minimum) on the part of the judge.

[David Harmon]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 00:07:44 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom,

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,

>Simply suggesting that to potential jurors makes him guilty of jury
>tampering, a felony. Free speech? There's established case law that
>that doesn't apply here.

The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in
controversy.
-- John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court,
Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794:4

[Keith F. Lynch]

Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> Perhaps your vt420 terminal isn't escape sequence compliant?

Those were not VT420 escape sequences.

> Your newsreader is broken, that's what happened.

I looked at the raw posting in Emacs too. I suppose you'll say that's
broken. And if I looked at it in more, that that's broken too. You
sound like a broken record.

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
> If some fact could cause a jury to render a different decision,
> that's enough IMO to make suppressing that fact an appealable error
> (at minimum) on the part of the judge.

No. Replace "could" with "would." It's not grounds for reversal
unless the appeals court believes that no reasonable jury could
possibly have found the defendant guilty had they seen that evidence.
Otherwise it's called "harmless error."

Also, if the defendant's attorney didn't object to the exclusion
during the trial, it can't be brought up during appeal. (Macumber's
attorney certainly did object.)

Yes, both of those sound outrageous. If you doubt me, ask any lawyer,
he'll tell you I'm right.

[David Harmon]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:52:29 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom,

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,

>David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> If some fact could cause a jury to render a different decision,
>> that's enough IMO to make suppressing that fact an appealable error
>> (at minimum) on the part of the judge.
>
>No. Replace "could" with "would." It's not grounds for reversal
>unless the appeals court believes that no reasonable jury could
>possibly have found the defendant guilty had they seen that evidence.
>Otherwise it's called "harmless error."

What you describe is the way it works now, not the way it ought to
be. It is the job of the jury to decide how much the suppressed
facts change things. It would have been the jury's job the first
time around and it should be the second time as well. Otherwise you
have judges usurping the role of trier of fact.

[rksh...@rosettacondot.com]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>> Filner's urging jurors who'll be chosen for the trial to reject
>> federal law in favor of state statutes under a centuries-old legal
>> concept known as ^[$B!H^[(Bjury nullification"-- whereby jurors
>> can refuse to convict people under laws they believe should not be
>> applied.
>
> Simply suggesting that to potential jurors makes him guilty of jury
> tampering, a felony. Free speech? There's established case law that
> that doesn't apply here.
>
> Interesting and unusual mojibake there. That doesn't look like UTF-8
> or Big5 cruft, but like good old-fashioned terminal escape sequences,
> though not ones familiar to me. How did that happen?

The charset for the post is set to ISO-2022-JP, which uses escape
sequences.
Not having used SeaMonkey (or any other GUI newsreader) to post, my suspicion
is that it changes the charset in the post when he copy-pastes from a web
page that he's viewing.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

[Kevrob]

On May 23, 8:07 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> > Filner's urging jurors who'll be chosen for the trial to reject
> > federal law in favor of state statutes under a centuries-old legal
> > concept known as ^[$B!H^[(Bjury nullification"-- whereby jurors
> > can refuse to convict people under laws they believe should not be
> > applied.
>
> Simply suggesting that to potential jurors makes him guilty of jury
> tampering, a felony.  Free speech?  There's established case law that
> that doesn't apply here.
>

Replying here from the other thread (drift).

It was my understanding that lawyers informing a jury of their
nullification powers is what The Powers That Be have made illegal
(sic). Jurors acquitting after judging the law unjust has been legal
at least since the Zenger trial, or that of William Penn.

It's as if the judges declared "no lawyer may tell a juror that the
water is wet."

Kevin R.

http://fija.org/

[David Friedman]

In article
<d2d37862-e1ed-4a85...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

And I think it would be hard to bar someone other than the lawyers
involved in the case from publicly arguing for jury nullification, on
free speech grounds.