He asked for the reasoning, not opinions.

In my opinion it is wrong for judges to prevent juries from hearing about their rights and responsibilities. But I don’t make the rules and many judges are jealous of their position as interpreter of the law. They don’t want defense attorneys contradicting their jury instructions which are typically in the form of “If you find facts A and C, you must bring in a verdict of B”.

Except nullification, even if provable, is not reversible on appeal.

Yes, the judge must instruct the jury way the law is, but the jury has the right to judge the law rather than the defendant.

I wonder if the judge thought the defendant had a legitimate self-defense argument, brushed aside by an anti-gun prosecutor and anti-gun jury. This could be an indirect route to helping him.

How about–

When a jury convicts on a charge carrying a mandatory minimum, the defense should have the right to reveal the mandatory minimum and ask the jury to re-consider. But in that case, the jury would also hear all the factors that go into the mandatory minimum, eg prior convictions.

I am not sure whether to give the jury a power to reduce the mandatory minimum, as a compromise short of nullifying the charge entirely.

,

In short:

The Jury must determine what the facts are.

The Judge must instruct the Jury what the law is.

Therefore, a defense attorney informing a jury about their right to acquit as a matter of conscience is an usurpation of the Judge’s obligation and (s)he may disallow it.

It would seem paradoxical to use a cultural impact assessment as explanation for/mitigating circumstance of the defendant’s action for the very reason of perpetuating low expectations, as cited in the same article. so are we then to perpetuate low expectations, which is alleged to be part of the problem to be fixed.

The Way to Stop Discrimination on the Basis of Race Is to Stop Discriminating on the Basis of Race

What’s missing from both Radley Balko’s and Pamela Colloff’s articles is when or whether defense (or even the courts, sua sponte) raised any Daubert motions at trial to oppose the admissibility of blatantly unscientific “blood spatter” evidence and “bite mark” evidence presented by soi-disant “experts” with virtually no actual scientific training, or knowledge and practice of scientific method.

Although it may be possible to make some scientific factual findings from blood spatter or bite marks, the “experts” testifying in the cases presented were difficult to distinguish from crystal ball gazers, or worse, rigged carnival game hucksters.

Any court with integrity should raise Daubert issues sua sponte when considering such “experts”.

I’m retired LE and have assisted prosecution and been the source of prosecution on many cases and even I can’t fathom the logic behind obfuscating or prohibiting the jury from understanding that conscientious acquittal is a thing or discussing the consequences of conviction. Can anyone tell me the legal reasoning? I’m not as interested in opinion, just the basic whys.