And for the November 2010 elections, we have...
Harry Mary Andruschak
It will be interesting to see how the Roman Catholic Bishops in
California react to THIS one <G>
Paul Ciszek
In article <b74036f4-cfc1-4759...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
I would think the reaction of the DEA would be more immediately
interesting.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Keith F. Lynch
It will be a lot more interesting to see how the federal government
reacts. There won't be much point to legalization if it just means
being arrested by DEA agents rather than by state, county, or city
police, and being sentenced to federal prison instead of state prison.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Paul Ciszek
In article <hghgmv$rdl$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Harry Mary Andruschak <adopts...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1218/California-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-marijuana
>
>> It will be interesting to see how the Roman Catholic Bishops in
>> California react to THIS one <G>
>
>It will be a lot more interesting to see how the federal government
>reacts. There won't be much point to legalization if it just means
>being arrested by DEA agents rather than by state, county, or city
>police, and being sentenced to federal prison instead of state prison.
1) Are federal agents required to keep local law enforcement informed of
their whereabouts and activities?
2) Is a person charged with violating a federal law entitiled to be
tried by a jury local to the area where the crime occured?
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> It will be a lot more interesting to see how the federal government
>> reacts. There won't be much point to legalization if it just means
>> being arrested by DEA agents rather than by state, county, or city
>> police, and being sentenced to federal prison instead of state prison.
> 1) Are federal agents required to keep local law enforcement
> informed of their whereabouts and activities?
No. Indeed, one of the main reasons why the FBI was created was
because many local police forces were hopelessly corrupt. It would
defeat the purpose if the local police were kept in the loop.
> 2) Is a person charged with violating a federal law entitiled to be
> tried by a jury local to the area where the crime occured?
Yes (which is why no attempt was made to try Confederate leaders for
treason). But they can exclude anyone who refuses to swear under
oath to vote based on the facts even if they disagree with the law
in question.
Harry Mary Andruschak
Ah yes, good ol' Jury Nullification. California judges just HATE it.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
All judges hate it and many legal theorists do also. In all honesty,
most instances of jury nullification I have seen have been
regrettable. However, "the right to a jury trial" is meaningless
without it. Directed verdicts of guilty are not part of a system where
the defendant has a right to a jury trial.
--
Will in New Haven
David G. Bell
<5c680109-013a-41f1...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Doesn't the legal history of this go back at least to William Penn? The
judge really wanted a conviction. There was some forceful comment from a
Chief Justice that a judge may guide a jury, but he may not lead them by
the nose.
Of course, the politics behind the modern jury nullification movement is
a bit controversial. And I expect there were trials over lynching which
would make a fine example of the weakness of the principle.
It's how you balance the potential dishonesty of the different elements.
But a dishonest Judiciary may be a harder problem than a dishonest jury.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
Paul Ciszek
In article <20091223.21...@zhochaka.org.uk>,
David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.org.uk> wrote:
>
>Doesn't the legal history of this go back at least to William Penn? The
>judge really wanted a conviction. There was some forceful comment from a
>Chief Justice that a judge may guide a jury, but he may not lead them by
>the nose.
FIJA activists claim it extends back into English Common Law, and has
been part of American history since Peter Zenger. Some cite 17 straight
jury acquitals in the Salem witch trials also.
>Of course, the politics behind the modern jury nullification movement is
>a bit controversial. And I expect there were trials over lynching which
>would make a fine example of the weakness of the principle.
The thing is, that sort of nullification has always existed and always
will. From the civil rights era to the trial of the cops who beat
Rodney King to someone getting off the hook for beating up an anti-war
(first Gulf war) protestor, it has always been easier to get off the
hook for killing or hurting someone unpopular.