🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan7.4@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>Considering wild and ridiculous theories as "reasonable" explanations
>that will cast doubt on clear evidence is becoming more common among
>some juries.  The Kahane/Nosair case was quite remarkable in this
>respect.  It took the Rosenbaum/Nelson case to wake people up to
>recognize a trend emerging.

Perhaps this trend is not so nefarious as you think. Ever heard of FIJA?
Stands for Fully Informed Jury Act (or Ammendment..can't remember). Anyway,
it means that juries should have the right to decide on not only whether 
a defendent is guilty of a particular crime, but whether the law that has
resulted in a crime is just or reasonable.

If a jury decides that someone is innocent of growing pot because the
cultivation laws are bankrupt, this is all to the good in my opinion.
It's not a particularly large to leap for a jury to let someone off if
they believe the justice system is bankrupt, and that fellow members of
their interest group have been historically persecuted under such a system.

								    MPA