Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But that does not make it law is the point. Tell the prosecuting attorney in a case today you are going to do it and you will be placed under bond immediately or dismissed.
Too bad.
[.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, ]
But that does not make it law is the point. Tell the prosecuting attorney in a case today you are going to do it and you will be placed under bond immediately or dismissed.
Too bad.
All that proves is that the state disapproves of jury nullification. But of course it's legal and there is no way to stop it. Can you name a single time anyone has been imprisoned for jury nullification?
[.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, ]
Yes indeed. It says UNDER this constitution not CONCERNING this constitution. No where does the C say who has the authority to interpret it. THINK
All that proves is that the state disapproves of jury nullification. But of course it's legal and there is no way to stop it. Can you name a single time anyone has been imprisoned for jury nullification?
All that proves is that the state disapproves of jury nullification. But of course it's legal and there is no way to stop it. Can you name a single time anyone has been imprisoned for jury nullification?
No, it is not. If the judge can prove that a jury nullification took place, he can sanction the jurors and require a new jury. Your question adds nothing and need not be answered.
[.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, ]
Yes indeed. It says UNDER this constitution not CONCERNING this constitution. No where does the C say who has the authority to interpret it. THINK
Yes, ShootSpeeders, you need to read Article III and think.
Finally, I would like to conclude with what I consider to be the Great Evils, those things that have distorted the Rule of Law in America, the land where the Law is King.
Without a doubt, the very first of these is Sovereign Immunity. The inability of citizens to sue their government in Court is a direct violation of the First Amendment, as it prohibits citizens the right to petition the Government a redress of grievances (through the courts), giving the State an unfair advantage, as only the State can press charges.
The State will only prosecute when it believes it will win, and it will never consent to be sued when it believes it will lose; thus it is no surprise that power has been transferred away from the people to the Government over time.
No, a jury can freely admit (after the verdict) that they performed Jury Nullification. A judge can NEVER overturn a Not Guilty verdict, due to double jeopardy.
A judge may overturn a GUILTY verdict (non obstante verdictum) under extreme circumstances to be appealed to a higher Court, but NEVER a Not Guilty verdict.
That's your opinion. Evidence, please.
[
ShootSpeeders, the Courts themselves also possess the power of judicial review. Jury Nullification is intended as a "last resort" because not even the Supreme Court can overturn a Not Guilty verdict. Article III clearly expresses this power, also, if the Courts are not to interpret the Constitution (in Cases where there exists no Jury), than who is?
Jury Nullification does not set a precedent. A Court does.
[.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, ]
Yes indeed. It says UNDER this constitution not CONCERNING this constitution. No where does the C say who has the authority to interpret it. THINK
All that proves is that the state disapproves of jury nullification. But of course it's legal and there is no way to stop it. Can you name a single time anyone has been imprisoned for jury nullification?
No, it is not. If the judge can prove that a jury nullification took place, he can sanction the jurors and require a new jury. Your question adds nothing and need not be answered.No, a jury can freely admit (after the verdict) that they performed Jury Nullification. A judge can NEVER overturn a Not Guilty verdict, due to double jeopardy.
A judge may overturn a GUILTY verdict (non obstante verdictum) under extreme circumstances to be appealed to a higher Court, but NEVER a Not Guilty verdict.
That's your opinion. Evidence, please.
Let's see if 2nd has the evidence.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . ."[1] The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:
retrial after an acquittal;
retrial after a conviction;
retrial after certain mistrials; and
multiple punishment
Jeopardy attaches in jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in, in a bench trial when the court begins to hear evidence after the first witness is sworn in, or when a court accepts a defendant's plea unconditionally.[2] Jeopardy does not attach in a retrial of a conviction that was reversed on appeal, in a retrial for which "manifest necessity" has been shown following a mistrial, and in the seating of a second grand jury if the first refuses to return an indictment.
[
The SCOTUS not only has the right to interpret the Constitution, it has the obligation to do so, too.
I was addressing you, 2nd, not the amendment.
And, no, your opinion has been contravened by the various court rulings above.
Your opinion, podjo, is not law.
