Hypothetically...
If the law was they banned high cap mags over 10.
I was arrested for having a high cap magazine over 10 rounds.
I want to fight the law and claim innocense based on the law is unconstitutional.
in a trial.... what would the jury be deciding is if i was guilty or not guilty simply on the facts of if i have a high cap magazine? i (my lawyer) would or would not be able to say i should be found not guilty because the law is unconstitutional?
So in front of the jury we would say nothing to them at all??? and remain quiet? sinfe our only defense is the law is unconstitutional?
Guess what i am confused about is how one fights a case simply on the fact it is beleived to be unconstitutional?
I'll answer how that would play out in a California state court. That's where my experience comes from. And for the record, IANAL. My background is an LEO, and in preparing cases for presentation to a filing DDA and watching how courtroom shenanigans play out over more than 30 years.
The first move is for your defense counsel to make a motion for the charge to be dismissed based on the unconstitutionality of law (Refer to CPC section 995) If the attorney elects to do this in open court, they'll say something like "Your honor, I have a motion" The judge takes the hint and sends the jury outta the courtroom so that they do not hear the particulars of the motion. But the motions are typically made in advance of the actual trial, and the jury is never privy to them. The judge will typically take briefs from each side, hear argument, and will make a ruling. Either side may appeal an adverse ruling.
If the trial court rules that the law is unconstitutional, then stand by for a guaranteed appeal by the people (the prosecution and AG). I've never seen a situation where the people have accepted a trial court finding of unconstitutionality. If a higher court makes a final finding that the law is constitutional, then the criminal trial resumes. If the higher court finds that the law is unconstitutional, and elects to publish the ruling, then that becomes case law for all subordinate courts.
If the trial court rules that the law is constitutional, then the defendant may appeal. That's a choice based on resources and the expected outcome of the appeal. The trial court may stay proceedings based on a defense appeal.
Up to this point, there is no jury anywhere in the picture.
If the trial court proceeds with a criminal trial based on the presumption that the statute is constitutional, then relevant evidence is presented to the jury showing: 1) That you possessed the magazine, and 2) That the magazine had a capacity of more than ten rounds. Any evidence about the constitutionality of the statute is irrelevant to any decision to be made by the jury and is gonna be excluded.
Prior to deliberation, the jury receives instructions from the judge. Jury instructions tend to be very wordy, and to say the same thing many times over, but in slightly different ways (so that everyone gets it). But in simple terms, expect something like this: "If you find that the defendant had the magazine in his possession AND that the magazine had a capacity of more than ten rounds, you will find the defendant guilty. If you find that either one, or both, of these conditions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you will find him not guilty."
The jury then deliberates and returns a verdict. At no point in the process is the jury ever formally asked to explain why they reached the verdict.
That the "deckplate" explanation of "How the sausage is made". It would also be good to hear from the JD's on the forum about "How the sausage-making machine was designed." It's good to get a variety of viewpoints on a question like yours.
