Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Apr 2008 08:21 UTC, submitted by Jason Slack
Thread beginning with comment 312078
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Yes, I am very anti-precedence. But in this case I don't even think it had anything to do with precedence. The case was so obvious, the prosecutor was so inept, that I think he really felt he had no choice. I don't know how he dismissed the case, maybe he called it a mistrial, I don't know. We weren't told everything.






Member since:
2006-05-28
You should have been offended. That's an example of a current of thought now popular in American law that juries should be excluded from setting precedent whenever possible, or be confined to rendering verdict in accordance with statutory law or judicial instruction. Basically it is a systematic effort by many in the law profession(s) to marginalize the influence of peers in case law; but one of the fundaments of common law is the ability of juries to curtail the unjust application of codified law or legal precedent.
see the current argument over the right/idea of Jury Nullification. Oftentimes prospective jurors will be asked about this and dismissed if they know of / believe in it.