Time: Wed Oct 30 12:08:46 1996
To: Nancy Lord <defense@mindspring.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: Feature, Nov. 6
Cc: Nancy Lord
Bcc: Nancy Lord
At 01:32 PM 10/30/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:20 AM 10/30/96 PST, you wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
>>>> NOTE: DUE TO LENGTH, CONSIDER THIS YOUR BONUS FEATURE FOR NOVEMBER
>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED NOV. 6, 1996
>>>> THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
>>>> But don't juries only 'try the facts'?
>
>Jack,
> I have heard this argument before, including
>from attorneys and other legal scholars. And I
>have had experience with Judges who held that
>the evidence that an accused sought to introduce
>was "irrelevant."
U.S. v. Gaudin, S.Ct. (1995) held
that juries are empowered to make
determinations of relevance and
materiality. Justice Thomas wrote
the majority opinion, as I recall.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
> Unfortunately, though, what's sauce for the
>goose is sauce for the gander.
I like my ganders smothered
with hot gravy and tart
cranberry sauce. Gooses can
go chase kites. :)
/s/ Paul Mitchell
If any and all
>evidence is to be presented, what about that
>obtained by illegal search and seizure, or confessions
>induced by whipping?
> Perhaps the real solution is to get the feds out
>of the criminal jurisdiction business, and return the
>matter to local courts.
This was always the intent of
the Constitution, and there
is a mountain of evidence proving
that federal jurisdiction is
STILL so limited.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
Local judges & prosecutors
>could then be forced to face the results of their
>actions in elections. Of course, for this to work,
>people would have to wake up.
> I have no answers. It's just a mess.
>Nancy
>>>>
>>>> # # #
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the old "jury judges only the facts" chestnut.
>>>>
>>>> Why is it, then, that the Constitution of the state of Maryland -- which
>>>>the Founding Fathers knew intimately -- states that the jury shall be the
>>>>"trier of law and of fact"?
>>>>
>>
>>Nancy,
>>
>>I enjoyed Vic's post very much. However, I think he only covered half
>>the problem. For the most part he explained why it was a jury's right
>>to decide the merits of the law. To me it seems the half he did not
>>discuss is just as important. That is while he simply says that a Jury is
>>a trier of fact, he forgot to mention that a Jury shold really have the
>>right to SELF-CONSISTENT facts.
>>
>>My somewhat biased view is that attorneys and judges are forever sending
>>those on jurys from semi-comfortable seats to dimly lit hallways where reading
>>is difficult if not impossible while they debate WHICH facts to give a jury.
>>So, while it may be that a complete set of data is at hand there are no
>>constraints on these meetings to conceal data / facts / information that
>>the data that will be given to a jury be self consistent or even sufficient
>>to deduce anything let alone guilt or innocence
>>
>>So along with deciding the law itself I think Vic missed a splendid
>>opportunity to point out that the jury should also have the right / ability
>>to judge the presented data / facts for its usefulness / coherence and
>>perhaps tell the prosecutors: YOU GOOFED. GIVE US SOME SELF CONSISTENT FACTS
>>
>>As one who thoroughly enjoyed each and every SS Van Dyne who firmly held
>>that physical facts were meaningless and only psychological facts were of
>>any validity one notes that for the most part only physical facts are given
>>to juries while the psychological profile of all those involved are rigorless
>>kept out ....or so I believe in the sense that past crimes / behaviour which
>>is a vital part of self consistent facts is practically always excluded
>>Sorry to be such an irritant
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 |
>> ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 |
>> jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US |
>>
>>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail