9 Jan
2014
9 Jan
'14
1:16 a.m.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> wrote:
.... However, those Quakers' positions may have been erroneous, based on a misunderstanding of the relevant law. A person may claim to be 'not guilty' based on the fact that he wasn't there, he didn't do it, etc. But, he may also claim to be 'not guilty' because what he did didn't constitute a crime, or he was justified based on extenuating circumstances, or he was trying to prevent a bigger crime.
in the US court system, is there an equivalent of jury nullification applied to a judicial ruling? that is to say: is it possible to plead guilty, but a judge acting to nullify a perceived unjust law, could find you not guilty?