Jacob Appelbaum in Germany

[Jim Bell]

From: coderman <coderman at gmail.com>

To: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8 at yahoo.com> 
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Jim Bell <jamesdbell8 at 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?

Yes, the concept of 'jury nullification' exists in American law.   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Informed_Jury_Association  .    Unfortunately, courts generally take the position that while jurors have the right to acquit regardless of the evidence, judges are not obliged to inform the jurors of that right.  Worse, judges usually take the position that they can order defense attorneys to not inform jurors of those jurors' rights on this subject.  See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparf_v._United_States
A judge can also declare a defendant 'not guilty', despite a guilty verdict by a jury:  This is called "Judgment notwithstanding the verdict", abbreviated (from Latin, I believe) "j.n.o.v.".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JNOV        
       Jim Bell
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 2830 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20140109/9f45adfd/attachment-0001.txt>