Cubic Dollars

[goflo at pacbell.net]

FWIW, "jury nullification" is explicitly recognized in California's
constitution. Nonetheless, the common practice is for judges to ask 
prospective jurors if they will follow the instructions of the court
in matters of law. Those who refuse to agree to this are not allowed
to serve.

Jack

Greg Hermann wrote:
> Yep--and remember that John Adams (yes, that one) argued that the Bill of
> Rights was unnecessary cuz "NO JURY WOULD EVER CONVICT ANYBODY UNDER AN
> UNREASONABLE, UNJUST LAW, ANYWAY!"  Jury nullification was an accepted part
> of English (and thus American, unless you are from Louisiana) law from when
> the Magna Carta was signed until the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Mellons,
> Morgans, Harrimans, etc. told the gummint that it should henceforth be
> called "JURY LAWLESSNESS!!" The framers considered the jury of peers to be
> the ultimate check and balance in their newly designed system of
> government. Really, the law on this subject has NOT changed, they just try
> to tell us that it has!!! Jurors have the right to judge the law as well as
> the facts in any case before them! Think about it!!