Dywinski v. State Of New York (SAFE Act Challenge)

Yes, what Aquila Blanca points to is jury nullification: the power of the jury to nullify a law. From the federal Model Jury Instructions, 2001 version (the only copy that I could get to quickly):

Ladies and gentlemen: I will take a few moments now to give you some initial instructions about this case and about your duties as jurors. At the end of the trial I will give you further instructions. I may also give you instructions during the trial. Unless I specifically tell you otherwise, all such instructions both those I give you now and those I give you later are equally binding on you and must be followed.
This is a civil case brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff allege that the defendant _______________. The defendant deny[ies] that allegation. [If defendant has a counterclaim or affirmative defense, it should be stated here.] It will be your duty to decide from the evidence whether the plaintiff is [are] entitled to a verdict against defendant.
From the evidence you will decide what the facts are. You are entitled to consider that evidence in the light of your own observations and experiences in the affairs of life. You will then apply those facts to the law which I give you in these and in my other instructions, and in that way reach your verdict. You are the sole judges of the facts; but you must follow the law as stated in my instructions, whether you agree with it or not.
In deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide what testimony you believe and what testimony you do not believe. You may believe all of what a witness says, or only part of it, or none of it.
In deciding what testimony to believe, consider the witnesses' intelligence, their opportunity to have seen or heard the things they testify about, their memories, any motives they may have for testifying a certain way, their manner while testifying, whether they said something different at an earlier time, the general reasonableness of their testimony and the extent to which their testimony is consistent with other evidence that you believe.
Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I give it to you.
You should not take anything I may say or do during the trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what I think your verdict should be.
Click to expand...


Whether jury nullification is a proper exercise of the jury's powers is a debate more properly discussed in another thread. However, I would like to put AB's quote in a little more context:
It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, 4, 1 L. Ed. 483 (1794)
Click to expand...
 
For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
Click to expand...
Reasonable.

The law was built to serve justice, but does not always do so. In times where the two are not compatible, a thinking person of initiative must discard the incorrect law and serve justice instead (at least their version of it, as it is often subjective). I expect such views for a potential juror may invalidate their selection.
 
I am very disappointed that Mr. Tresmond is not challenging the provisions requiring registration of ammo dealers, background checks for ammo sales and outlawing mail-order ammo sales. Even if we return to pre-1/13/2013 situation as far as guns go, Cuomo will make it impossible to feed those guns. We will still end up with a de-facto ban. Mr. Tresmond, please address this problem as well.
 
A poster over at NYFirearms.com says that the announcement is postponed until tomorrow. See post 137
http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politics/46785-tresmond-lawsuit-information-use-thread-6.html#post419292
Just got off the phone with Max -- big news will be postponed to tomorrow. I know you guys have been waiting on this thread anxiously all day but Court schedules have delayed the significant news until tomorrow.

Max will be blogging directly from the court room tomorrow and keeping NYF as well as some other forums current with the information.
Click to expand...
 
I'll let Max provide details but I've been in direct contact with him on these SAFE Act cases and have been relaying leaks (directly from Max who has been in the Court room) within another pro-firearms forum which I won't post here in fear that I might violate forum rules.

As of today, one of the Tresmond Cases (can't get into case details, that is for Max to do) had a favorable ruling come through from a NY State Supreme Court Justice that has been handling the litigation of one of the Tresmond's anti-SAFE cases. The Supreme Court Justice has signed an order for Respondents to appear before the court on April 29th and provide good cause and reasons why the State should not be enjoined from enforcing any provision of the assault weapons ban. This is not the instant gratification NY gun owners are looking for, but the implications of an injunction on the SAFE Act are huge. The injunction is likely to rewind NYS back to how things were in terms of gun laws on Jan. 14th, 2013, before the SAFE Act was passed and signed. You should be able to answer your own questions about assault weapons bans, etc. based on that statement. An injunction is far-reaching and essentially puts the entire SAFE Act on hold while the Court battles are in process (which can take a year or longer). Prelim. Injunctions are only granted when the higher Courts rule that a case has merits among other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_injunction

I'm just relaying news here, I spoke with Max on the phone just before 1pm today. Not sure how much info will get into the press at this point but certainly keep an eye out...
 
Last edited:
"I was following Maxb49 thread on NYFirearms.com and apparently the site just crashed! Before that it was all Great News!"

A liberal conspiracy no doubt!!

OK, maybe people celebrating. Or maybe just coincidence.
 
Yeah they're down right now, probably from the increase in traffic. Either that or Cuomo hired some ex-union workers to DDoS it...
 
I can't believe we crashed NYFirearms.

We were taking a break, went out to dinner, and I tried pulling the website up on my phone. Said the page couldn't load. I was puzzled. Then I thought "Nah, couldn't be..." Apparently, it is.

Onward!
 
First I would like to thank you and your father and everyone else involved. Second can you give us short and detailed report of what happened today? And if the next court date is April 29th how does that effect the laws that are to go into effect on the 15th?
 
Wonderful News! An order to show cause, is generally only given when the Judge thinks that the case will win on its merits.

Just sorry that NY Firearms is down.
 
Hey guys, I'm back!

Sorry about that. This has been one of the craziest, busiest night I've ever seen. Are Spats and Al around?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top