Yes, I've seen that term used in "Three strikes and you're
out" cases in California, where a jury refused to send
someone up for life for a relatively petty third crime.
Sorry. A little OT.
Lawrence
---------Included Message----------
>Date: 11-Mar-2008 12:13:10 -0400
>From: "Nathan Cain" <
IndieCrime@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: <
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com>
>To: <
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Lehane and
Pelecanos
>
>The technical term is, I believe, jury
nullification.
>
>On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:31 PM, <
jxshannon2@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been dis-empaneled several times now for
saying I would not follow the
>> judge's advice on the law if it went against my
own conscience. There's some
>> legal word for that doctrine, and I believe it's
one of the great secrets of
>> jurisprudence--that judges never want juries to
toy with that idea. And,
>> yes, I agree it can be a dangerous concept. It
was used in the South for a
>> century to free whites who had hurt or killed
blacks.
>>
>> John Shannon
>>
>> **************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms,
and advice on AOL Money &
>> Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
>>
>>
>
>
---------End of Included Message----------
Lawrence Coates Associate Professor of Creative Writing
Bowling Green State University
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 11 Mar 2008 EDT