stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Some people will say anything, anything, in order to avoid admitting they were wrong.
| Quote | #24
Ah, that makes it more clear, thank you. But then why do you define jury nullification as this:
“What I want to talk about here is how the people have been stripped of their right to have a jury judge the law - commonly called jury nullification”
in your post if you, as you said, define it as being the jury nullifying the law? Is it “the jury nullifying the law” or “the jury being nullified”?
Jury nullification is the jury nullifying the law. The Dover school board was not allowed to put their case before a jury because of what I consider a loophole i.e. only injuctive relief was sought (plus punitive-size legal fees). If they’d have been able to put their case before a jury, even if the judge was convinced the board was guilty, the jury may have thought the law was wrong and found the school board innocent - in effect nullifying the law. -ds
Comment by Monimonika — June 30, 2006 @ 6:33 am
|
See? It's jury nullification, because if it had been qualified to be a jury trial, which it wasn't, and a jury trial happened, which it didn't, and the jury had nullified the law, which almost never happens, then it would have been jury nullification.
You evolutionists are truly out of your league, responding to such a brilliant legal mind.
Anyway, notice something else: he doesn't say the jury would have found the Dover school board not guilty, he says the jury would have nullified the law. Davetard admits, in other words, that the school board violated the law.
Hard to understand why ID keeps losing, with geniuses like this at the helm.
|
