Aguila Blanca
Staff
Or the jury's.pichon said:I guess it all comes down to the courts interpretation of the RKBA
This is another example of why more citizens need to read up on their rights, duties, and responsibilities as jurors. This was a case that cried out for jury nullification. As JohnBT noted, laws use words, and words have meaning. But way back at the start of this republic, the first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, John Jay, ruled that a jury shall be the triers of the facts and of the law.
So regardless of what a law says and what a judge tells the jury they MUST do with a law ... properly speaking, if a jury thinks a law is wrong they have a moral and legal DUTY to reject the law and acquit the defendant.
Interestingly, while subsequent Supreme Court decisions have ratified that, they have also ruled (inexplicably) that although juries DO have the right to reject a law they think is a bad law ... judges do NOT have to tell them that. Therefore, it's up to US to know that, and to tell as many other citizens as possible about that.