FirstFreedom
Moderator
It's actually an extraordinarily specific hypothetical. Any details you want me to refine, just ask. Why would you call a specific question "general"?
Would jury nullification in any way effect precedence or would it just be cause for a mis-trialOne of those "appropriate avenues" is to be arrested, convicted and appeal the conviction.
I'm going to use that, if you don't mindIf "the law is the law" and must be obeyed no matter what, then what you're saying is that those who make the laws are gods
Would you throw your fellow gun owner in prison?
Yes - He/she is guilty of the law as charged
No - The law prohibiting possession in unconstitutional, and I would vote not guilty
He/she is charged with one sole count of "possession of a firearm" outside the home.
Then why would you assume that there is chance that he could be a felon in possession of a firearmbut you know what happens when you assume, right?
You make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".
Or that he was in possession of a destructive device or a nuke,The defendant is a person with no prior record of any crime.
He/she is charged with one sole count of "possession of a firearm" outside the home.
If the jury acquitted, then for that trial and that specific person, on that specific charge, the game is over.joab said:Would jury nullification in any way effect precedence or would it just be cause for a mis-trial
What a lot of people don't understand about nullification is that in order for it to actually work (by that, I mean, "change" the law), juries all over the country (or State, if the law was a State law) would have to acquit the defendants of the same charges in the same circumstances.
State legislatures (or Congress) take note of the fact that a law they passed was being subverted by juries across the spectrum. They would then either change the law of rescind it.
n any event, the hypothetical assumes that you DID make it onto the jury - now you have your choice to make.
Would that be the same SCOUTUS that ruled it was acceptable to remove people from their property so that a country club could be built and decided that freedom of speech was no longer in in effect thirty days out from an electionI don’t see any SCOTUS Justices responding to the polls.
Not a mention of a particular amendment or section of the constitution we are to honor but only to the constitution as a wholeThus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.