In New York City, of all places. I seem to recall hearing that half of all gun possession cases in DC ended up nullified. What do you think a London jury would have found? There is a Second Amendment in the minds of the people, whether our opponents want to recognize it or not.
16 thoughts on “Jury Nullification on Gun Charge”
I somehow doubt they have jury nullification in London. If they ever had it, I doubt they have it anymore.
Jury nullification is just a term. The power to nullify is inherent in a jury’s power to acquit. England and Wales still do trial by jury, so nullification is possible in England too. Though since 2003, England and Wales have weakened the protections against double jeopardy in some circumstances, and also weakened trial by jury to some degree, so it’s not as healthy a concept as it is here.
I’ve never heard of a Skyy pistol, or the Skyy CPX-1.
Looks like a Kel Tec knock off. Anyone have experience with them? Are they decent guns? Or are they pieces of crap?
BTW, here’s Skyy’s webpage. They look great, and I like the looks of their holster.
Almost get the feeling this company is somehow related to Kel Tec. But don’t know.
I heard somewhere that English juries can convict with 10 out of 12. British people don’t seem to have the same healthy mistrust in government that we do, so convictions are probably almost guaranteed wherever firearms are involved.
That is true. But the same is the case for Oregon. That part of the 6th Amendment has never been incorporated against the states.
As someone who visits NYC on a daily basis, and was raised there, I applaud this jury. For whatever else ordinary New Yorkers may be called out for, they have a keen sense of justice. This guy made an honest mistake, neither intending to nor harming anyone, and should not have had his life ruined. At bottom I’m sure they new this, and decided in a most New York City way, “The prosecutor is a jerk, this guy’s not a criminal – there is NO WAY I’m putting him in prison”.
I hope mayor mike has a stroke over this :)
Just curious: why is it the Court gets to pick and choose which rights the 14th’s authors “intended” to incorporate, like an eclectic at a luncheon buffet? Just what specific wording in the 14th empowers them to do that? And why does such election change over time instead of being “discovered” all at once? This just smacks of judicial fiat to me, arbitrary “justice” on a whim. Am I missing something in the text somewhere?
@Arnie: 19th century racism
@Arnie, Ian summed it up nicely, but Google “Slaughterhouse cases” or “14th Amendment incorporation” if you want more details.
This case is a wonderful story. Simply amazing. I think Sebastian’s “2nd Amendment in our hearts” is exactly right; the Constitution guarantees rights but it does not grant them. We grant them. Great day for NYC.
@Arnie: To expand on what Ian said: 19th century racism, plus stare decisis, and the SCOTUS’s reluctance to overturn even plainly wrong precedent. The Court’s general rule is
While they aren’t completely unwilling to overturn bad decisions, they generally lean towards consistency over correctness. This is why McDonald incorporated the 2A under Due Process rather than P&I – since they could incorporate without overturning the Slaughter-House Cases, they left a clearly bad decision standing.
At this point, Slaughter-House will probably never be overturned, because there are other ways to incorporate rights. “Settled, rather than settled right.” [spit!]
I’m not necessarily going ot disagree there. Stability is important in our system. Which makes it more important to get it right in the first place.
I see a lot of police harassment in that jury members future.
I looked at the DA’s biography. He seems to be a SWPL, through and through. (Manhattan native, Yale, Georgetown, Seattle, etc.) I wonder if he is any relation of the State Department guy of loathesome memory, of the same name.
Comments are closed.