Pubdate: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 Source: St. Petersburg Times (FL) Copyright: 2004 St. Petersburg Times Contact: http://connect.sptimes.com/contactus/letterstoeditor.html Website: http://www.sptimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/419 Author: Ted Mazzarese Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n534/a06.html JURIES SHOULD UNDERSTAND THEIR POWER Re: From painkillers to prison, editorial, April 5. It could not possibly be with a clear and sober mind that a jury would convict a suffering man for nothing more than trying to ease his pain unless the jury was simply unaware of its right to nullify the law in certain circumstances. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in any Supreme Court decision requires jurors to take an oath to follow the law as the judge explains it or, for that matter, authorizes the judge to "instruct" the jury at all. Judges provide their interpretation of the law, but jurors may do their own thinking. Understanding the context in which an illegal act was committed is essential to deciding whether a defendant acted rightly or wrongly. Strict application of the law may produce a guilty verdict, but what about justice? If jurors agree that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused did act as charged, then context becomes everything in reaching a verdict each juror can live with. When a jury believes justice requires it, the jury can refuse to apply the law. Jurors even have the power to consider whether a law itself is wrong and can refuse to apply any law that violates their conscience. And when the state brings multiple charges against a defendant, as it often does so that the jury assumes that the defendant must be guilty of something, a vote of "not guilty" can be submitted on all counts. - -- Ted Mazzarese, Largo - --- MAP posted-by: Josh