Re: "Jury in need of Dismissal"

Michael Fisher (mwfisher@CTS.COM)
Mon, 31 Mar 1997 16:43:00 -0800

Savoia wrote:
>
> Michael Fisher:
> > "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, if upon examining the
> > evidence you find that there are two possible interpretations
> > of that evidence, one leading to the defendants guilt, and one to
> > his innocence, then however unlikely the interpretation leading to
> > his innocence, you must find the defendant "not guilty".
> >
> > That is from memory, but its real close.
> >
>
> "...however unlikely the interpretation leading to his innocence".
> Unfortunately, this opens the door to any possible wild explanation.
> The defendant can bring in UFOs, pink unicorns and even god. How
> then, can anyone ever be convicted with such an out clause? Isn't
> this the same right demanded by Bible inerrantists? If an
> explanation can be found to resolve even the most obvious
> contradiction, no matter how zany or concocted the explanation, it
> must be accepted as resolving the contradiction.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

The key word is evidence.

Within a court of law there are dozens of rules of evidence (and exceptions if
you can meet them) that have grown up over the years that control just what is heard
by the jury.

I suppose the defendant can try and claim that an alien from a UFO held him
under duress or something, but the defendant would first be required to put on
evidence of the actual existence of the UFO. Following the rules of evidence.

That's one reason insanity defenses are rarely used. It's damned hard to prove
that the individual met the tests that the courts demand.

Oh, and contrary to any protestations of any Xian to the contrary, the Bible
is pure second, third, or fourth hand hearsay. And the only hearsay exception that I
see it qualifying for is one that a believer might not wish to urge.--That there
simply IS no other evidence available. So if anyone EVER tells you that the Bible
would be excellent evidence in a court of law, he is quite wrong.

Ciao.

-- 
	Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student	


	http://home.aol.com/Mfish6994


	*		*		*     
	
     He that would make his own liberty secure, 
     must guard even his enemy from oppression; 
     for if he violates this duty, 
     he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
		
                                             Thomas Paine