It’s not news that most judges balk at the prospect of jury nullification—the right and power of juries to bring “not guilty” verdicts when defendants violate laws that jurors consider unjust or wrongly applied. It is news when judges take a high-profile slap at a colleague who endorsed jury nullification in his own courtroom. And it’s an even bigger deal when they barely assemble a majority to join in the public shaming. Full Article
Related posts
-
CT: New Fairfield proposes ordinance to ban sex offenders from public places frequented by children
Source: newstimes.com 10/16/23 NEW FAIRFIELD — The town is proposing a new ordinance that, if adopted, would... -
CT: Connecticut disclosure rules for sex offenders deemed unconstitutional
Source: courthousenews.com 9/14/23 But the ruling only applies to the man who brought the case, since... -
CT: ‘Just existing, not living’: CT residents retroactively added to sex offense registry seek reprieve
Source: ctmirror.org 9/10/23 Twenty-five years after Connecticut required them to register as “sex offenders” ex post...
The jurisdictional boundary overrun via the domestic electronic infrastructure is plain and clear in this case. This case examples why the feds insisted upon a civil designation ( not like P&P) for sex offender registration – the other civil opportunity wrought for political security.