Time: Wed Oct 30 12:57:04 1996 To: Electra From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Please forward to Nancy Lord Cc: Bcc: >Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 12:08:49 >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