|
|
|
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
There are only two possible interpretations that I can see
1 the face value one, no reasonable jury could have found as this one did, ergo
this jury is unreasonable.
2 the judges instructions were lousy and therefore the jury misinterpreted their
remit.
Either case seems tailor made for an appeal.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- No. 2s - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:48 AM EDT
- No. 2s - Authored by: nuthead on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 08:21 AM EDT
- no - Authored by: webster on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: eachus on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 12:50 AM EDT |
| The only reason he can set aside the jury's ruling is by finding that "no
reasonable jury" could have found the finding they did. It's a matter of law -
essentially "The facts are so overwhelming that there is only 1 possible
answer"
Sigh! If the jury found for the defendant in a case, and the judge
feels that the facts only allowed for a verdict of guilty, you are in the
territory of Peter Zenger, William Penn's hat, and jury nullification of laws.
Reasonable judges do not create jury nullification where none was
intended. Juries only engage in nullification when they feel in that they cannot
in good conscience convict.
Hmmm. Maybe I should say instead that this
sort of behavior puts us into the territory of Kafka or Alice in Wonderland.
Once a jury concludes that the judge is acting irrationally, you get an
exciting trial--and very bad law. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
