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