I though juries could make legal determinations in whether or not to allow to apply the law to a case as in jury nullification. I have an admittedly unclear idea what jury nullification is and is not exactly but I understood it as such.
A friend of mine in law school first explained the concept to me years ago when had me go with him to attempt to distribute pamphlets to potential jurors that would be deciding the case of a retarded man accused of murder. His father was the defense attorney and said he was barred from ever mentioning jury nullification as a possible defense. The father didn't think he had a strong case with which to defend Johnny Wilson so his son thought maybe this would help. A bailiff came out and confiscated our phamphlets so we didn't get to pass them out. Maybe it would have helped maybe it wouldn't. His father was pissed because he feared he might get in legal trouble if they traced the jury nullification pamphlets back to his son.
The cops had coerced a confession from retarded kid and he was convicted of robbing and burning alive an 80 year old widow in their small town. 10 years later the real killer confessed and Johnny was set free after having been severely tramatized in prison all that time. Great system, coerced confessions are admissable but jury nullification pamphlets are not. Maybe if juries had more power there would be fewer fuck ups like these.
> Far as I can tell you are switching gears. The Stewart
> prosecution is a disgrace and should be protested.
> Unlike the Rahmnen perosecution.
> Justin
Can someone recommend a distilled explanation of this case online or explain it in just a few paragraphs here? I haven't followed it too closely but was told by several attorney friends that this conviction probably wouldn't happen so I'm curious why they were all wrong.
John Thornton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20050217/743e1e62/attachment.htm>