Then Something Unusual Happened

Its an odd thing when a question of justice, in a court of law, is now referred to as an unusual thing.

CATO has an excellent post about what may become the largest contested court decision post Heller, about whether a Juror has the ability to judge Justice, as well as Guilt Under the law, or do the scales of justice only weigh one side of case? It seems to me that if the government tries the men it chooses, in its courts, procecuted and judged by its men, and the People, selected of peers, can say nothing of it, well, then those men will always be found guilty, and punished as the government chooses.

It was supposed to be just another federal drug prosecution. The federal prosecutors introduced evidence that the man on trial was involved in the black market drug trade. The defense attorney said the government agents entrapped his client. And then the twelve citizen-jurors retired to deliberate the outcome of the case.

But then something unusual happened. The jury sent a note to the trial judge with the following query: Since the Constitution needed to be amended in 1919 to authorize federal criminal prosecutions for manufacturing and smuggling alcohol, a juror wanted to know from the judge where “is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession of cocaine today?”

Read the rest Here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/14/juror-becomes-fly-in-the-ointment/

and here, here, here, and here.

Rule by law, rule by men, or rule by state?

Cessante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex