08-06-2015, 06:33 PM
(08-06-2015, 06:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The jury did not rely on the theory of nullification in the Clemmons case. I specifically remember them saying that they did not convict because the states main witness was not reliable. Forget his name but it was the guy who worked for clemmons for years and claimed to have injected him with the steroids.
You have alink to a juror saying that the state had the proof to convict him but they acquitted because they did not agree with the law?
I stand by my position that if a juror says that he will uphold the law during Voir Dire he can be convicted of perjury for acquitting based on a disagreement with the law.
I'll do some more research, but I don't see any way this could be legal. It is a very dangerous principle. You have already pointed out that it was used to acquit white people who killed blacks. It could also be used to acquit a Muslim of a "honor killing", or a member of NAMBLA could acquit a child rapist. It completely goes against the theory of having any sort of "rule of law" that people have to follow.
In addition to the link I edited in above
Clemons
Clemons
It seems to be a common held belief that nullification is what took place in the Clemons trial.
But there's many many more examples.
I don't dispute the dangers of nullification. But let's not dispute the dangers of skewing the law in favor of prosecution either.
-That which we need most, will be found where we want to visit least.-
