Time: Wed Oct 30 12:08:46 1996 To: Nancy Lord <defense@mindspring.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: Feature, Nov. 6 Cc: Nancy Lord Bcc: Nancy Lord At 01:32 PM 10/30/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 10:20 AM 10/30/96 PST, you wrote: >> >>>> >>>> FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA >>>> NOTE: DUE TO LENGTH, CONSIDER THIS YOUR BONUS FEATURE FOR NOVEMBER >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED NOV. 6, 1996 >>>> THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz >>>> But don't juries only 'try the facts'? > >Jack, > I have heard this argument before, including >from attorneys and other legal scholars. And I >have had experience with Judges who held that >the evidence that an accused sought to introduce >was "irrelevant." U.S. v. Gaudin, S.Ct. (1995) held that juries are empowered to make determinations of relevance and materiality. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, as I recall. /s/ Paul Mitchell > Unfortunately, though, what's sauce for the >goose is sauce for the gander. I like my ganders smothered with hot gravy and tart cranberry sauce. Gooses can go chase kites. :) /s/ Paul Mitchell If any and all >evidence is to be presented, what about that >obtained by illegal search and seizure, or confessions >induced by whipping? > Perhaps the real solution is to get the feds out >of the criminal jurisdiction business, and return the >matter to local courts. This was always the intent of the Constitution, and there is a mountain of evidence proving that federal jurisdiction is STILL so limited. /s/ Paul Mitchell Local judges & prosecutors >could then be forced to face the results of their >actions in elections. Of course, for this to work, >people would have to wake up. > I have no answers. It's just a mess. >Nancy >>>> >>>> # # # >>>> >>>> Ah, the old "jury judges only the facts" chestnut. >>>> >>>> Why is it, then, that the Constitution of the state of Maryland -- which >>>>the Founding Fathers knew intimately -- states that the jury shall be the >>>>"trier of law and of fact"? >>>> >> >>Nancy, >> >>I enjoyed Vic's post very much. However, I think he only covered half >>the problem. For the most part he explained why it was a jury's right >>to decide the merits of the law. To me it seems the half he did not >>discuss is just as important. That is while he simply says that a Jury is >>a trier of fact, he forgot to mention that a Jury shold really have the >>right to SELF-CONSISTENT facts. >> >>My somewhat biased view is that attorneys and judges are forever sending >>those on jurys from semi-comfortable seats to dimly lit hallways where reading >>is difficult if not impossible while they debate WHICH facts to give a jury. >>So, while it may be that a complete set of data is at hand there are no >>constraints on these meetings to conceal data / facts / information that >>the data that will be given to a jury be self consistent or even sufficient >>to deduce anything let alone guilt or innocence >> >>So along with deciding the law itself I think Vic missed a splendid >>opportunity to point out that the jury should also have the right / ability >>to judge the presented data / facts for its usefulness / coherence and >>perhaps tell the prosecutors: YOU GOOFED. GIVE US SOME SELF CONSISTENT FACTS >> >>As one who thoroughly enjoyed each and every SS Van Dyne who firmly held >>that physical facts were meaningless and only psychological facts were of >>any validity one notes that for the most part only physical facts are given >>to juries while the psychological profile of all those involved are rigorless >>kept out ....or so I believe in the sense that past crimes / behaviour which >>is a vital part of self consistent facts is practically always excluded >>Sorry to be such an irritant >> >>Jack >> >> >> >> Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | >> ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | >> jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | >> >> > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail