cropcirclewalker said:
By the way.......Does anybody have a link to the brief that the NRA submitted in Fincher's defense? Surely it must be around somewhere.
Amicus briefs wouldn't be submitted at the district court level, they would be submitted at the appellate level. Fincher has to lose this case first.
It looks like one small part of Miller is getting cured. No more "In the absense of any evidence to the contrary" bull flop.
The militia argument was already heard in the
Hale case I pointed you at earlier. It was also heard in the
Nelson case where the decision was essentially "See Hale." One thing that Fincher will hopefully be able to distinguish from Hale is that he is not a violent white supremacist. However, I don't know how much difference that will make since the Hale decision just out and out says that being a member of a private militia is not enough justification. It doesn't distinguish between whether you were a helpful, friendly militia or a gang of white supremacists.
Stilley is highly likely to lose this level of the case and most of this will be about making sure to get in evidence that he can be heard on appeal. This is why they having all the sidebar discussions. The prosecutor is working to exclude evidence and Stilley is working to get it admitted. Also, evidence that Stilley may want to present concerning the Second Amendment may have to be presented at sidebar because the judge considers it a matter of law.
elliost said:
There is so much wrong with this case. Like why can't the Constitution be used in defense?
The Constitution can be used in defense. The argument is over whether the jury can hear that testimony. If it is a matter of law, that is for the judge to decide. If it is a matter of fact, that is for the jury to decide. The prosecutor is arguing that by making a Second Amendment argument, Stilley is arguing a point of law that the judge should rule on and the jury should not hear that argument.
The rationale between the law/fact distinction is that it makes for consistent law. Otherwise, the law changes every time you have a different jury. Fincher might get lucky and draw a jury of THR members and get off scot free. On the other hand, you might do the exact same thing and get 20 years in prison because you drew a jury of scared suburban housewives who believe whatever the state tells them on guns. Generally, people get unhappy when they can be sent to prison for 20 years depending on what the latest batch of citizens serving on a jury decided.
Usually a judge will give a jury specific jury instructions outlining how to apply the law and the jury decides any facts that are in controversy - like which witness to believe, etc.
The upside of this system is that it allows the judiciary to protect the minority from the majority and give more consistent law. The downside of this system is it reduces the power of citizens to challenge unjust laws by refusing to go along at the ballot box.