Terrific, your the second e-correspondent to mistake my gender today. The other is a friend of a friend who after an email exchange about something quite non-sexual (probability theory?) inquired whether it was me or my wife that did most of the writing, because it was so interesting she figured the writer to be female. I guess there's a compliment in there somewhere....
Yes, I'm a guy, dammit.
On names, my son Julian is loosely named after the DS9 character, not because I liked the good doctor all that much but because I liked the sound of the name. My wife didn't like the name until she saw a "Julian" in a vampire movie. Hmm.
Gore -- I was very surprised to learn he would not run for (re)election after hearing a flattering NPR interview last week and catching him on SNL the night before (which I rarely watch) and thinking it was nice to see him relaxed and kind of having fun. Of course, maybe that's exactly why he doesn't want to run. He is fairly young at 54 and may pop up in 2008. I don't know if there's something going on behind the scene, but I think he's actually doing what's right for him. (Even politicians should think of their families.) Moreover, it would be hard to avoid having a Bush/Gore 2004 look like a grudge rematch (when's the last time the same two candidates ran against each other twice in a row?). A long possibility is that he wants to or will be dragged into the race, which would make it look like he was there out of popular demand rather than to heal his ego. I think he will be available for that should a Dem bloodfest erupt, but doubt it will happen. This stuff has a year or so to sort out.
As for handicapping the race, I have no idea. I'm not good at it in the first place, but I think 2000 is an important reference. Bush barely won against a weak candidate with only the weakest imaginable margin, in fact a 250,000 deficit in popular vote. This is not auspicious and I don't think he's since covered a lot of ground with the people who don't like him. As his dad proved, his "wartime" approval ratings at this point count for little. In 2004 it will be very important (1) how the economy is doing and (2) who his opponent is. I have a feeling #1 is going to be bad, I hear people grumbling about how little has been done or even said. He has time to turn that around, but he won't. On #2... who knows? Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, obscure southern governors, came out of nowhere. Then there are the unknowns like war and terrorism.
Who are the Republicans going to reanimate for VP?;-)
Hillary in 2008? I don't know enough about her as a politician as yet, and I would be pretty surprised if a female Dem could win. As a plus, she does not lack smarts, and her husband is a very skilled consigliere. Yet somehow both female and Dem are thought to point to mushy emotionalism; with a female republican they cancel out. How's that for sexual analysis? Hillary does have charisma, perhaps enough to drive the mini-revolution her candidacy would entail. It was only a few years ago (~1992) that there were only 2 women in the Senate; now there are, what, a dozen? I don't think she can win, she's viewed as a brittle Yankee feminist. (Remember the "stay home and bake cookies" thing?)
Lieberman -- no way. He's kind of a renegade Dem that I guess they thought would help shield them as VP from all the charges of devil-worshipping leveled against anything Clinton. I can't see him garnering broadbased support. Someone like Tom Daschle (Senate maj. leader for a few more days) of John Kerrey (stereotyped as Mass. liberal, might get Dukakis syndrome).
Here I next to DC and have none of the answers. But I do think Pres. Bush should be worried; if the Democrats don't self-destruct like they usually do, he's in trouble. Also, being in the Congress minority gives the Dems tremendous opportunities for attack without the responsibility for actually fixing anything -- you know, the way the Republicans had it for many years. The Republican leadership also stumbled badly under Gingritch. There are a lot of question marks in the air.
You'll notice that 12:01 AM shows up in a lot of contracts and such, either to dispell uncertainty or because people aren't sure when the next half of the day starts.
I have to admit I have trouble telling 12:01 AM from 12:01 PM, so maybe the 24 hour clock would help. But I'm American and no more likely to give up 12-hour time as to surrender the three-teaspoons-to-a-tablespoon nuttiness. This time thing doesn't come up too often, though, except with this person confusing the kiddie matinee with the night owl showing -- and quite pleased to pocket the surprise discount (technically that's wrongful, too, if he/she had any awareness that the problem was probably an error... of course you always look and feel silly reporting that you've been undercharged... charge me more, dammit!).
Ah, good point, BUT you are confusing science with people.:)
I'm fairly skeptical, but here I'm mostly thinking about science. One of the major points of controlled double-blind studies is to weed out the placebo effect of which anyone self-reporting "It works!" would be unaware. This isn't personal observation but self-evaluation, and by someone with a mood disturbance of ill-defined severity and type and duration, and who is prejudiced against taking "drugs" over "natural" remedies. (A double-blind trial has further purposes of course, such as screening for even unwitting biases of the investigator.)
So the poster's finding is anecdotal not scientific. And anecdotal evidence pretty much is hearsay -- unverifiable, uncontrolled, unreproducible. Ditto for the poster's purported diagnosis of minor depression (does that mean dysthymia? cyclothymia? minor depression? where's the DSM??). We also don't know if the Prozac trial was botched in some way, and would have to know dosages, duration, the patient's life situation during treatment, and other meds, the presence/absence of other medical problems, age, consumption of alcohol etc.
ESPECIALLY with psychiatric illnesses, self-medication and evaluation is risky. With minor depression the stakes are at least low; maybe you feel miserable, but you don't commit suicide. Of course, we're relying on his self-reported diagnosis of minor depression -- can we trust that? You see what I'm getting at, I could rattle off many questions.
Granted if you feel OK on SJW, then you probably do feel OK, for now. But don't expect to get that into Science.:)
I wrote what I did, I hope it is obvious, not to be tendentious but because I care very deeply about the welfare of the mentally ill. That means allowing each person to get what best suits them, not strong-arming them onto Prozac. The truth must be available over whatever claims anyone might make, and the requirements on the supplements industry are ridiculously light. On the same package they claim something treats malady-of-your-choice while disavowing that it treats malady-of-your-choice because the FDA will sue them (and has done so). Even if this doesn't kill anyone and folks enjoy taking the supplements it could well be consumer fraud. If every package of shark toenails had a disclaimer "This has never been shown to do anyone any good in any credible way" I think sales would fall.
These days what angers me is misinformation and prejudice directed to or against people who need real help. I look forward to the next generation of antidepressants; it appears that the SSRI's have just about been milked dry, and though they were a nice achivement they're also about 20 years old. Effexor and Wellbutrin and different drugs, and I think I mentioned Lexapro, the new flavor of Celexa created by teasing out one of the two isomers -- clever stuff. (I'm not promoting this stuff, I just find the science interesting and hope the clinical work pans out.)
For those of us who do sift through old stories, duplicates are irritating especially when they're inconsistent (likely to happen when they're unaware of each other). I see the second story and think, what, did something change? Also, with the/. users who visit occasionally and are among whatever fraction it is that has something interesting to say, multiple posts just split them up, and makes worse the problem that discussions get abandoned after 12 hours have passed.
A "news briefs" kind of thing might be nice -- summaries of summaries -- but make it a real feature, not a random strike of lightning. I missed the spam story, too, but am not going to endorse random recycling.
Set all that aside, the duplicates just don't look very professional. If they aren't doing background work on the stories, what are they doing? Should we trust what we see not to be a hoax? Etc.
That passage is difficult to parse, but what I understand the court to be emphasizing is the trial judge's obligation to see that the law is followed. They are really talking about the juror's obligations, and take pains to emphasize their very dim view of nullification in any form -- hence the skeptical words "If it is true..." The court says that even if nullificatrion is normal factor it only redoubles the importance of the judge's careful scrutiny. The holding essentially says that jurors must follow the law and any juror inclined to nullify shall be dismissed immediately upon the court receiving appropriate information. This has happened even during deliberations, in a case where a juror wrote a note to the judge declaring her intentions.
You're right about scope of precedent, except that jury nullification has no significance because it is illegal. All the jury returns is a verdict on guilt or innocence, not special findings about the laws, although nullification might be inferred from the strangeness of the verdict or later statements of the jurors. So the scope of nullification is limited to the scope of the case in the same way a mistrial is, except that a mistrial can be remedied with retrial.
The judge's rulings of law are the law of the case alone; the other trial judges are not bound to any particular rule until an appeals court decision comes along. Special rules kick in if the validity of a law is drawn into question, for example the US Attorney must be notified, if not already a party to the case, to render their opinion; and rarely would the voiding of a law not be appealed immediately. Last, the prosecution may not bring cases under a law declared void (moot is something else); it would not even get a grand jury indictment, and the mere filing even once would be malpractice, prosecutorial misconduct, and so on. The prosecutor might well lose his or her job and face bar disciplinary sanctions up to the loss of their license. One thing that will really make a court flip out is to disregard its ruling, and a prosecutor abusing the power of the office is a particularly terrible thing.
Boy, this little point has spilled a lot of ink, hasn't it?
Re:You can find kaleidoscopes everywhere
on
Low Tech Toys?
·
· Score: 2
Well, there are other ways to work out your aggressions. I could propose a few.
Remember, sticking anything into a real head (well almost anything) is a crime. You could put an eye out with that thing.;-)
Do you really date back to the original potato head? I just remember plastic, going back 30 years. Also, as a parent, I know I'd just be dragging wizened sprouting potatoes out from under the sofa.... When I wasn't rushing my kid to the hospital to repair his brother's ideas on anatomical improvements.
I should have thought of that! Argh! If the protection applies (there are some weird exclusions, like if you are away from home) then the credit card protection is a practical way to contest piddling sums. In effect, you pay a little bit for their help every time you use the card.
If dealing with the theater is beyond reason, act quickly with your CC issuer and get payment frozen pending resolution.
Good advice.
(He can still see the movie at midnight, but I recommend a non-Twilight Zone theater. Check for clocks running backwards, giant blinking eyes, that sort of thing.)
As a matter of law, the theater is wrong. They can't later stick on the sign saying, "By the way, at this theter night means day." Even with the sign I think they'd be dancing on the edge of fraud. Mention this word to them, "fraud." You were induced to buy something that is worthless to you by their false representations. The only wrinkle is the discount price, which might theoretically have put you on notice, but I don't buy it.
As a practical matter, the amount involved is peanuts, which doesn't mean you aren't rightfully mad. It sounds like you explained things to them properly. Make sure you're talking to a real decisionmaker, as far up the chain as you can get. Write a letter even! Middle-lings sometimes like to assert their power unthinkingly.
The practical alternatives are not many. You could (1) picket; (2) badmouth them every chance you get; or (3) complain to the BBB and seek a settlement. I vote for #3.
Sympathies -- I hate being treated like that, as if their stupidity were my fault. (I wouldn't use that argument with them.:)
I'm sorry, you are dead wrong. I state it starkly because so many have this wrong.
Part of the evidence in the case was that Elcomsoft sold the product to several Americans, apparently with no precautions to respect American law even after being warned, effectively breaking our law on our soil. Was the U.S. wise to bring this case? Perhaps not. Is Elcomsoft guilty? I don't know. Did the U.S. have the authority? Probably.
Critically, ElcomSoft did challenge jurisdiction (esp. read the briefs and judge's decision). Elcomsoft raised unconvincing grounds (IMHO, and the judge's) and lost. Any challenge to jurisdiction here should focus on the questions raised in the briefs and the court's answers. For the purposes of this case, any other challenges Elcomsoft could have raised might have been great but have been waived. The judge may have been wrong, but that doesn't mean that jurisidiction is this sort of case is at all difficult to conceive.
I'm not defending here the substance of the DMCA or the law on jurisdiction, just describing.
Don't forget Skylarov is not on trial; his charges are apparently dismissed. His arrest was probably valid, but I'm not happy at all about the detention, as a matter of policy and civil liberties. If his arrest was illegal he could sue for damages, though I suspect he may not want to hang around in the U.S. after what happened. I wouldn't.
It is a fact that many, many people with minor depression have been helped by st. john's wort, and impotence is almost unheard of.
It is also a fact that it is rare for prozac to not cause some kind of sexual dysfunction.
Patently false; I would like to see the study. In my experience a sentence that starts with "It is a fact that" will be followed by an assertion backed by nothing. Numbers, please.
The truth is that really good studies don't exist on these Q's. Sexual dysfunction (impotence, delayed ejeculation, loss of libido -- so it affects women, too) is very common for Prozac, but reliable figures are that less than 50% of patients are affected, which means not having is SD is far from rare, and not having severe SD even farther from rare. It must be factored in that depression causes SD, that some forms of SD are treatable by reducing dose, adding Viagra, etc -- or switching to a different med., and that for some men delayed ejaculation is actually desirable. You are extrapolating far too much from your personal experience -- it applies only to your physiology -- and there are too many alternatives to Prozac to decide preemtptively that St. John's Wort is preferable, esp. considering the chiefly anecdotal evidence for its effectiveness. Relying on anecdotal evidence brought us problems like relying on leeches and bloodletting for medical care -- everyone said it worked great, why study it?
Prozac et al. are mostly reserved for major depression and preliminary interventions in lesser depression. Prozac is the oldest and possibly worst of the SSRI bunch -- about 20 years -- and has been improved upon, but everyone's heard of it. Meanwhile, everyone's heard of St. John's Wort but it is unlikely appropriate for even moderate depression, and in mild depression must nonetheless be used with caution and with an attentive ear to new studies showing it interferes with anti-AIDS drugs, etc. My post carefully recognized the difference. So does the NIH page. I was pissed for having bothering to look anything up for you. I am -almost- offended to be called "brainwashed" by the pharmcowhatever complex because you misread my comments, but know better.
If St. John's Wort works for you, great, but be aware it may well be a placebo effect, and that the herb (what we call a drug that grows in the ground; there's nothing natural about purifying an extract and ingesting it) may interact with other drugs, or have other effects unknown because it has barely been studied. Your subjective experience means nothing but that you think it works for you, which is nice but not proof it actually works. One day it suddenly may not work at all. Ideally no one would need to take any mood-altering anything. Depression is not ideal.
There are also a number of antidepressant outside the SSRI's -- Effexor, Wellbutrin, the tricyclics, and as a last resort the MAOI's -- plus a novel SSRI called Lexapro, a refinement of Celexa and introduced this year, that is claimed to avoid most side effects (the prelim data looks promising, but Celexa's also coming off patent next year, raising concerns Lexapro is more a revenue-enhancer). It is not mentioned much, but the SSRI's are not more effective than the tricyclics we've had for decades, but they have much better side effect profiles and, significantly, are much harder to commit suicide with.
I'm relating this not so much for you but anyone else who stumbles this way. Your situation is stable, but someone who is crashing hard and wastes time with SJW could not only waste time and money but get hurt. I consider accurate information of vital importance, regardless of who it makes look good. Don't forget people are making a lot of money of SJW; greed is not a risk only to the pharm companies; and it's only a matter of time before the FDA regains consciousness and regulates SJW as the psychoactive drug it is. Above all, I worry about people not getting the help they need, or getting help they don't need.
Your prescription of Prozac may have been inappropriate or dosed too high -- dosage is partly art with these drugs -- and Prozac is one of the worst of the ~5 SSRI's (Zoloft, Celexa/Lexapro, Remeron, Paxil, Prozac) for side effects (Remeron is supposed to be pretty bad for weight gain); and I mentioned the generic fluoxetine because some people do worry they don't have the money to seek treatment. If you're out-of-pocket the price difference is big, and even with insurance co-pays the generic is usually much less.
Why am I wasting time writing this? You already know everything, except all the stuff I could continue to write. Good luck.
This could be the fault of dumb laws or confused judges, it is unclear here. But unless you agree in principle with the court's ruling, the absolute best thing would be to deal with the source of the problem --- and it's not the newsletters! Authentication and signatures and so on are a long way from practical use, and surely they're unnecessary here. A responsible mailer requires confirmation from the user (authentication) and does nothing further if none is forthcoming. Sounds pretty good.
See how quickly a good idea (outlaw spam) can become a dumb idea (impede desirable mail)?
But I'm a lawyer not a juror, damn it! If I were a juror I would meeky eat my jury instructions kibble. Although I could "cheat" unless sequestered, I wouldn't.
I've never served on a jury, and now anticipate it with a sort of mute horror. With luck, it will be a nice boring case with nice boring jurors. Without luck...
Stay tuned, literally, PBS's Frontline may tape jury deliberations in a TX capital case, if it is approved. I don't think it will be approved, but it would be interesting.
Impotence? Did you know that death is an extremely common side effect of major depression?
You are confusing major and minor depression. The latter *might* at best be suitable for the Wort, at worst the Wort is a waste of money and diverts someone who need treatment from getting treatment.
But, sure, trust "trust herbalists and naturopaths that haven't been brainwashed by the medical industrial complex" who have no controlled studies, no regulation (becuase it's "not a drug"), and nothing monitoring them more than the profit motive. And ignore any studies that contradict what you want to believe. Very rational. If you're that much more horrified by impotence than depression, you're not particularly depressed.
If you're taking St. John's WART, yuck. If Wort, well, the concern with St. John's Wort is that while it probably has mild antidepressant effects (some of which may be placebo), it also steps on other toes in the nervous system to cause complications in some individuals. Although I am indifferent as to the source of a drug, some people like that St. John's Wort is "natural." So are strychnine and a thousand other nature's poisons -- natural doesn't mean safe.:)
In terms of effect, commercial antidepressants are much more powerful and have fewer side effects. Prozac has just come off patent, so it's finally cheap. Taking St. John's Wort in conjunction with prescription drugs can cause problems, esp. if you don't tell your doctor.
There is also good reason to question self-medication. If the depression is more than minor, or even if it merely won't go away, do consult with a doctor. You can always say no to further treatment. If you say yes, be cautious to get a good doctor, they are not all created equal (I used to work at a psych hospital, I know).
Anyway -- do some research on the web, I have seen many postings concerning St. John's Wort, and it's best if you read until you're satisfied for yourself. Here is the NIH view.
Houses here in No. VA are outrageous by normal-world standards. A modest house in Arlington costs what a farm would ten miles out, and a palace in the South or Midwest. Meanwhile, prices in No. CA are other-worldly. I mean, using California housing prices as a basis of comparison would be like starting with Hitler as your standard of compassion.
Median prices in Arlington have risen roughly 50% in 5 years -- a bit of sticker shock.
To the poster: There are many many mini Silicon-Whatevers around the country, including here. Things have slowed down with the economy, of course.
I grew up in California, N and S, and think it's a great state. But I have no question my standard of living (except weather) is better here. Anyway I like snow, damn it, and my mentality is much more East Coast than West.
The application is obviously important to its appropriateness. It sounds like you may be toying with the idea of trying; if so first consult with a doctor. Many things promoted through alternative channels may have additional effects not mentioned by the distributor -- St. John's Wort, for example.
Check the NIH site for information.
Also, of course don't buy anything from spam on principle alone!
As for this being a "virgin law," I'm not persuaded the jury needs to see it as a matter of course. On the other hand, the court can decide to give it to them if it likes. If the jury instructions are botched, that can be reviewed later, though note that the defense probably signed off on them.
As to why the jury asked to see the statute, that's speculation. Ask them after they're done.
I can't even believe the amount of insane misinformation out there on both jurisdiction and jury nullification. I just wasted a fair amount of time on the latter because I had to page through all these partisan pages all uselessly (mis)quoting each other before I finally switched to real legal sources to find real primary material -- which none of those sites apparently ever read. The rules and their rationales are so simple I have to figure some of these people are lying and others are accepting what they want to hear. I mean, really, this legal stuff is strictly 1L.
I don't know the holdings in Dougherty and Moylan -- but note that neither is a Supreme Court decision (F.2d is wrong reporter). I need access to the full original text to give an opinion. Moylan is 4th Cir. and apparently held that juries do have the power to nullify but because it is unlawful the defense attorney is prohibited from the jury to nullify. Logical.
Before you cite Sparf, 156 U.S. 51, 101-02 (1895), which the numerous pro-nullification sites bizarrely rely upon:
Public and private safety alike would be in peril if the principle be established that juries in criminal cases may, of right, disregard the law as expounded to them by the court, and become a law unto themselves. . . . We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court, and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence.
A minor dissent, IMHO the O.J. Simpson criminal trial was an example not of jury nullification but juror and judicial fumbling. I saw some of the dissenting jurors interviewed and was convinced the defense snowed them into enough confusion to acquit. All of the jurors were subjected to a grueling trial of ridiculous length -- in the real world it would have taken 2 weeks with no sequestration. That's just an opinion -- it might have been nullificiation or, for all I know, Simpson could not have been shown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the most orderly of trials. Hey, maybe he's innocence, though he did lose the civil trial.
I addressed the nullification issue elsewhere here.
An anecdotal account is interesting, but case law controls. Nullification may be "deeply embedded" in the American concept of jury but it is emphatically not a right of the juror. I posted a discussion and lengthy quote illustrating the state of the law.
I do know what the law is here, but not whether it should be something different, and I don't advocate the ideal system. Jury nullification is a clear example of a double-edged sword that works both for good and bad. There is no way to extinguish it fully, and it must be treated with the utmost suspicion.
Nullficiation is not a right. It is a flagrant violation of the juror's oath. Sometimes violating your oath might be the right thing to do, but that's not a right -- just a power you can get away with.
I don't have time to really run this down, but here (U.S. v. Thomas) is a 1997 Second Circuit case with a good discussion of jury nullification. It has cites to Supreme Court decisions you can run down if you like, including to Sparf which jury nullification proponents often cite as having upheld jury nullification, when it did the exact opposite. I can only wonder how that is. I would be very interested in contrary evidence with appropriate citations.
In Thomas a juror was dismissed by the trial court on various grounds. The 2nd Cir. found this to be error on evidentiary grounds and remanded. The relevant section in full (U.S. v. Thomas):
B. Nullification as "Just Cause" for Dismissal
In the instant case, the judge identified a different form of bias as the primary ground for dismissing Juror No. 5--one arising not from an external event or from a relationship between a juror and a party, but rather, from a more general opposition to the application of the criminal narcotics laws to the defendants' conduct. In the court's view, Juror No. 5 believed that the defendants had "a right to deal drugs." Based on what the court described as the juror's "preconceived, fixed, cultural, economic, [or] social . . . reasons that are totally improper and impermissible," the court concluded that Juror No. 5 was unlikely to convict the defendants "no matter what the evidence was." Essentially, the judge found that Juror No. 5 intended to engage in a form of "nullification," a practice whereby a juror votes in purposeful disregard of the evidence, defying the court's instructions on the law.
We take this occasion to restate some basic principles regarding the character of our jury system. Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror's oath to apply the law as instructed by the court--in the words of the standard oath administered to jurors in the federal courts, to "render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence." Federal Judicial Center, Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges 225 (4th ed. 1996) (emphasis supplied). We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.
We are mindful that the term "nullification" can cover a number of distinct, though related, phenomena, encompassing in one word conduct that takes place for a variety of different reasons; jurors may nullify, for example, because of the identity of a party, a disapprobation of the particular prosecution at issue, or a more general opposition to the applicable criminal law or laws. We recognize, too, that nullification may at times manifest itself as a form of civil disobedience that some may regard as tolerable. The case of John Peter Zenger, the publisher of the New York Weekly Journal acquitted of criminal libel in 1735, and the nineteenth-century acquittals in prosecutions under the fugitive slave laws, are perhaps our country's most renowned examples of "benevolent" nullification. See United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (Leventhal, J.); see also David Farnham, Jury Nullification: History Proves It's Not a New Idea, Crim. Just., Winter 1997, at 4, 6-7.
More generally, the very institution of trial by jury in a criminal case, as Judge Learned Hand observed, "introduces a slack into the enforcement of law, tempering its rigor by the mollifying influence of current ethical conventions." U.S. ex rel. McCann v. Adams, 126 F.2d 774, 776 (2d Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, 317 U.S. 269 (1942). This is so because, as Judge Hand explained, "[t]he individual can forfeit his liberty--to say nothing of his life--only at the hands of those who, unlike any official, are in no wise accountable, directly or indirectly, for what they do, and who at once separate and melt anonymously in the community from which they came. . . . [S]ince if they acquit their verdict is final, no one is likely to suffer of whose conduct they do not morally disapprove . . .." Id. at775-76.
As courts have long recognized, several features of our jury trial system act to protect the jury's power to acquit, regardless of the evidence, when the prosecution's case meets with the jury's "moral[] disapprov[al]." Since the famous opinion in Bushell's Case, 124 Eng. Rep. 1006 (C.P. 1670), freeing a member of the jury arrested for voting to acquit William Penn against the weight of the evidence, nullifying jurors have been protected from being called to account for their verdicts. Moreover, and in addition to the courts' duty to safeguard the secrecy of the jury deliberation room (discussed in greater detail below), the several rules protecting the unassailability of jury verdicts of acquittal--even where these verdicts are inconsistent with other verdicts rendered by the same jury in the same case, United States v. Carbone, 378 F.2d 420, 423 (2d Cir.) (Friendly, J.) (recognizing link between upholding inconsistent verdicts and protecting juries' power of lenity), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 914 (1967)--serve to "permit[] juries to acquit out of compassion or compromise or because of their assumption of a power which they had no right to exercise, but to which they were disposed through lenity." Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 22 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted).
But as the quotation from the Supreme Court's opinion in Standefer indicates, in language originally employed by Judge Learned Hand, the power of juries to "nullify" or exercise a power of lenity is just that--a power; it is by no means a right or something that a judge should encourage or permit if it is within his authority to prevent. Indeed, although nullification has a long history in the Anglo-American legal system, see Dougherty, 473 F.2d at 1130-33; Farnham, supra, at 4, and the federal courts have long noted the defacto power of a jury to render general verdicts "in the teeth of both law and facts," Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920); see, e.g., United States v. Trujillo, 714 F.2d 102, 105-06 (11th Cir. 1983), courts have consistently recognized that jurors have no right to nullify. See, e.g., United States v. Kerley, 838 F.2d 932, 938 (7th Cir. 1988) ("[J]ury nullification is just a power, not also a right . . .."); see also Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102 (1895) (holding that, while juries are finders of fact, "it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court and apply that law to the facts as they find them"). As a panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit--composed of Chief Judge Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Judge George E. MacKinnon, and then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg--explained: A jury has no more "right" to find a "guilty" defendant "not guilty" than it has to find a "not guilty" defendant "guilty," and the fact that the former cannot be corrected by a court, while the latter can be, does not create a right out of the power to misapply the law. Such verdicts are lawless, a denial of due process and constitute an exercise of erroneously seized power.
United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (emphasis in original). Indeed, as we noted above, the exercise of this de facto power is a violation of a juror's sworn duty to "apply the law as interpreted by the court." United States v. Boardman, 419 F.2d 110, 116 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 991 (1970).
Moreover, although the early history of our country includes the occasional Zenger trial or acquittals in fugitive slave cases, more recent history presents numerous and notorious examples of jurors nullifying--cases that reveal the destructive potential of a practice Professor Randall Kennedy of the Harvard Law School has rightly termed a "sabotage of justice." Randall Kennedy, The Angry Juror, Wall St. J., Sept. 30, 1994, at A12. Consider, for example, the two hung juries in the 1964 trials of Byron De La Beckwith in Mississippi for the murder of NAACP field secretary Medgar Evers, or the 1955 acquittal of J.W. Millam and Roy Bryant for the murder of fourteen-year-old Emmett Till, see David Halberstam, The Fifties 431-41 (1993); Juan Williams, Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965, at 38-57, 221-25 (1987)--shameful examples of how "nullification" has been used to sanction murder and lynching.
Inasmuch as no juror has a right to engage in nullification--and, on the contrary, it is a violation of a juror's sworn duty to follow the law as instructed by the court--trial courts have the duty to forestall or prevent such conduct, whether by firm instruction or admonition or, where permitted, by dismissal of an offending juror from the venire or the jury. If it is true that the jury's "prerogative of lenity," Dougherty, 473 F.2d at 1133, introduces "a slack into the enforcement of law, tempering its rigor by the mollifying influence of current ethical conventions," Adams, 126 F.2d at 776, then, as part and parcel of the system of checks and balances embedded in the very structure of the American criminal trial, there is a countervailing duty and authority of the judge to assure that jurors follow the law. Although nullification may sometimes succeed--because, inter alia, it does not come to the attention of a presiding judge before the completion of a jury's work, and jurors are not answerable for nullification after the verdict has been reached--it would be a dereliction of duty for a judge to remain indifferent to reports that a juror is intent on violating his oath. This is true regardless of the juror's motivation for "nullification," including race, ethnicity or similar considerations. A federal judge, whose own oath of office requires the judge to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [the judge] . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States," 28 U.S.C. 453 (1994), may not ignore colorable claims that a juror is acting on the basis of such improper considerations.
Accordingly, every day in courtrooms across the length and breadth of this country, jurors are dismissed from the venire "for cause" precisely because they are unwilling or unable to follow the applicable law. Indeed, one of the principal purposes of voir dire is to ensure that the jurors ultimately selected for service are unbiased and willing and able to apply the law as instructed by the court to the evidence presented by the parties.
So also, a presiding judge possesses both the responsibility and the authority to dismiss a juror whose refusal or unwillingness to follow the applicable law becomes known to the judge during the course of trial. Rule 24(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the substitution of alternates for "jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, become or are found to be unable or disqualified to perform their duties." Surely a juror is "unable or disqualified," for purposes of this rule, who is intent on nullifying the applicable law and thereby violating his oath to "render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence."
Similarly, we conclude that a juror who is determined to ignore his duty, who refuses to follow the court's instructions on the law and who thus threatens to "undermine[] the impartial determination of justice based on law," Krzyske, 836 F.2d at 1021, is subject to dismissal during the course of deliberations under Rule 23(b). This conclusion reinforces the court's inherent authority to conduct inquiries in response to reports of improper juror conduct and to determine whether a juror is unwilling to carry out his duties faithfully and impartially. The rule we adopt applies with equal force whether the juror's refusal to follow the court's instructions results from a desire to "nullify" the applicable law or, for example, as in the cases described above, see supra p. 17, from a perceived physical threat or from a relationship with one of the parties.
Our position in this respect is in accord with that of the Eleventh Circuit. See United States v. Geffrard, 87 F.3d 448, 450-52 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 442 (1996). In Geffrard, a juror submitted a letter to the court during the course of deliberations in which she stated that she adhered to the Christian teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg. Under Swedenborg's theology, the juror explained, she could not "`live with a verdict of guilty for any of the accused on any of the charges, as [she] believe[d] deep within [her] heart and soul and mind that [the defendants] were unjustly led into this so called transaction by a more intelligent and powerful figure.'" Id. at 451. The juror was convinced, assertedly as a result of her religious beliefs, that the defendants were the victims of governmental entrapment, notwithstanding the fact that the court had earlier instructed the jury that entrapment was not at issue in the case. Id. The juror in Geffrard thus was prepared purposefully to disregard or ignore--to "nullify"--the law as set forth in the court's instructions to the jury. The district court "saw in the letter an inability of the juror to follow the court's instructions on the law." Id. Accordingly, the court dismissed the juror pursuant to Rule 23(b), and the remaining eleven jurors convicted the defendants. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, reasoning that the juror's letter "[made] it a certainty that this particular juror could not reach a verdict following the judge's instructions as applied to the facts." Id. at 452.
We agree that a juror's purposeful refusal to apply the law as set forth in a jury charge constitutes an appropriate basis for that juror's removal. Nor is this conclusion any less valid, in the instant case, in light of Juror No. 5's race. The rule authorizing dismissal of a juror who disregards the law does not include an exception for jurors who violate their sworn duty on the basis of racial or ethnic interests or affinities. Accordingly, the district court's finding that Juror No. 5 was unlikely to convict the defendants "no matter what the evidence" was a proper basis for the exercise of the court's dismissal authority, provided that the court had a sufficient evidentiary basis for this finding. As we explain below, however, the need to safeguard the secrecy of jury deliberations requires the use of a high evidentiary standard for the dismissal of a deliberating juror for purposeful disobedience of a court's instructions, a standard that the record in the instant case fails to meet.
I'm not finding fault with your gut reaction, but the rule stated is so basic I don't even know where to look it up! There is a third flavor, incidentally, called "mixed questions of law and fact."
I think you can find what you need in the rules of criminal procedure. The Cornell (where I went to school) site has ample links to the landmark cases and other materials.
Slashdot Mirror
Terrific, your the second e-correspondent to mistake my gender today. The other is a friend of a friend who after an email exchange about something quite non-sexual (probability theory?) inquired whether it was me or my wife that did most of the writing, because it was so interesting she figured the writer to be female. I guess there's a compliment in there somewhere....
... who knows? Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, obscure southern governors, came out of nowhere. Then there are the unknowns like war and terrorism.
;-)
Yes, I'm a guy, dammit.
On names, my son Julian is loosely named after the DS9 character, not because I liked the good doctor all that much but because I liked the sound of the name. My wife didn't like the name until she saw a "Julian" in a vampire movie. Hmm.
Gore -- I was very surprised to learn he would not run for (re)election after hearing a flattering NPR interview last week and catching him on SNL the night before (which I rarely watch) and thinking it was nice to see him relaxed and kind of having fun. Of course, maybe that's exactly why he doesn't want to run. He is fairly young at 54 and may pop up in 2008. I don't know if there's something going on behind the scene, but I think he's actually doing what's right for him. (Even politicians should think of their families.) Moreover, it would be hard to avoid having a Bush/Gore 2004 look like a grudge rematch (when's the last time the same two candidates ran against each other twice in a row?). A long possibility is that he wants to or will be dragged into the race, which would make it look like he was there out of popular demand rather than to heal his ego. I think he will be available for that should a Dem bloodfest erupt, but doubt it will happen. This stuff has a year or so to sort out.
As for handicapping the race, I have no idea. I'm not good at it in the first place, but I think 2000 is an important reference. Bush barely won against a weak candidate with only the weakest imaginable margin, in fact a 250,000 deficit in popular vote. This is not auspicious and I don't think he's since covered a lot of ground with the people who don't like him. As his dad proved, his "wartime" approval ratings at this point count for little. In 2004 it will be very important (1) how the economy is doing and (2) who his opponent is. I have a feeling #1 is going to be bad, I hear people grumbling about how little has been done or even said. He has time to turn that around, but he won't. On #2
Who are the Republicans going to reanimate for VP?
Hillary in 2008? I don't know enough about her as a politician as yet, and I would be pretty surprised if a female Dem could win. As a plus, she does not lack smarts, and her husband is a very skilled consigliere. Yet somehow both female and Dem are thought to point to mushy emotionalism; with a female republican they cancel out. How's that for sexual analysis? Hillary does have charisma, perhaps enough to drive the mini-revolution her candidacy would entail. It was only a few years ago (~1992) that there were only 2 women in the Senate; now there are, what, a dozen? I don't think she can win, she's viewed as a brittle Yankee feminist. (Remember the "stay home and bake cookies" thing?)
Lieberman -- no way. He's kind of a renegade Dem that I guess they thought would help shield them as VP from all the charges of devil-worshipping leveled against anything Clinton. I can't see him garnering broadbased support. Someone like Tom Daschle (Senate maj. leader for a few more days) of John Kerrey (stereotyped as Mass. liberal, might get Dukakis syndrome).
Here I next to DC and have none of the answers. But I do think Pres. Bush should be worried; if the Democrats don't self-destruct like they usually do, he's in trouble. Also, being in the Congress minority gives the Dems tremendous opportunities for attack without the responsibility for actually fixing anything -- you know, the way the Republicans had it for many years. The Republican leadership also stumbled badly under Gingritch. There are a lot of question marks in the air.
You'll notice that 12:01 AM shows up in a lot of contracts and such, either to dispell uncertainty or because people aren't sure when the next half of the day starts.
... of course you always look and feel silly reporting that you've been undercharged ... charge me more, dammit!).
I have to admit I have trouble telling 12:01 AM from 12:01 PM, so maybe the 24 hour clock would help. But I'm American and no more likely to give up 12-hour time as to surrender the three-teaspoons-to-a-tablespoon nuttiness. This time thing doesn't come up too often, though, except with this person confusing the kiddie matinee with the night owl showing -- and quite pleased to pocket the surprise discount (technically that's wrongful, too, if he/she had any awareness that the problem was probably an error
Ah, good point, BUT you are confusing science with people. :)
:)
I'm fairly skeptical, but here I'm mostly thinking about science. One of the major points of controlled double-blind studies is to weed out the placebo effect of which anyone self-reporting "It works!" would be unaware. This isn't personal observation but self-evaluation, and by someone with a mood disturbance of ill-defined severity and type and duration, and who is prejudiced against taking "drugs" over "natural" remedies. (A double-blind trial has further purposes of course, such as screening for even unwitting biases of the investigator.)
So the poster's finding is anecdotal not scientific. And anecdotal evidence pretty much is hearsay -- unverifiable, uncontrolled, unreproducible. Ditto for the poster's purported diagnosis of minor depression (does that mean dysthymia? cyclothymia? minor depression? where's the DSM??). We also don't know if the Prozac trial was botched in some way, and would have to know dosages, duration, the patient's life situation during treatment, and other meds, the presence/absence of other medical problems, age, consumption of alcohol etc.
ESPECIALLY with psychiatric illnesses, self-medication and evaluation is risky. With minor depression the stakes are at least low; maybe you feel miserable, but you don't commit suicide. Of course, we're relying on his self-reported diagnosis of minor depression -- can we trust that? You see what I'm getting at, I could rattle off many questions.
Granted if you feel OK on SJW, then you probably do feel OK, for now. But don't expect to get that into Science.
I wrote what I did, I hope it is obvious, not to be tendentious but because I care very deeply about the welfare of the mentally ill. That means allowing each person to get what best suits them, not strong-arming them onto Prozac. The truth must be available over whatever claims anyone might make, and the requirements on the supplements industry are ridiculously light. On the same package they claim something treats malady-of-your-choice while disavowing that it treats malady-of-your-choice because the FDA will sue them (and has done so). Even if this doesn't kill anyone and folks enjoy taking the supplements it could well be consumer fraud. If every package of shark toenails had a disclaimer "This has never been shown to do anyone any good in any credible way" I think sales would fall.
These days what angers me is misinformation and prejudice directed to or against people who need real help. I look forward to the next generation of antidepressants; it appears that the SSRI's have just about been milked dry, and though they were a nice achivement they're also about 20 years old. Effexor and Wellbutrin and different drugs, and I think I mentioned Lexapro, the new flavor of Celexa created by teasing out one of the two isomers -- clever stuff. (I'm not promoting this stuff, I just find the science interesting and hope the clinical work pans out.)
For those of us who do sift through old stories, duplicates are irritating especially when they're inconsistent (likely to happen when they're unaware of each other). I see the second story and think, what, did something change? Also, with the /. users who visit occasionally and are among whatever fraction it is that has something interesting to say, multiple posts just split them up, and makes worse the problem that discussions get abandoned after 12 hours have passed.
A "news briefs" kind of thing might be nice -- summaries of summaries -- but make it a real feature, not a random strike of lightning. I missed the spam story, too, but am not going to endorse random recycling.
Set all that aside, the duplicates just don't look very professional. If they aren't doing background work on the stories, what are they doing? Should we trust what we see not to be a hoax? Etc.
That passage is difficult to parse, but what I understand the court to be emphasizing is the trial judge's obligation to see that the law is followed. They are really talking about the juror's obligations, and take pains to emphasize their very dim view of nullification in any form -- hence the skeptical words "If it is true..." The court says that even if nullificatrion is normal factor it only redoubles the importance of the judge's careful scrutiny. The holding essentially says that jurors must follow the law and any juror inclined to nullify shall be dismissed immediately upon the court receiving appropriate information. This has happened even during deliberations, in a case where a juror wrote a note to the judge declaring her intentions.
You're right about scope of precedent, except that jury nullification has no significance because it is illegal. All the jury returns is a verdict on guilt or innocence, not special findings about the laws, although nullification might be inferred from the strangeness of the verdict or later statements of the jurors. So the scope of nullification is limited to the scope of the case in the same way a mistrial is, except that a mistrial can be remedied with retrial.
The judge's rulings of law are the law of the case alone; the other trial judges are not bound to any particular rule until an appeals court decision comes along. Special rules kick in if the validity of a law is drawn into question, for example the US Attorney must be notified, if not already a party to the case, to render their opinion; and rarely would the voiding of a law not be appealed immediately. Last, the prosecution may not bring cases under a law declared void (moot is something else); it would not even get a grand jury indictment, and the mere filing even once would be malpractice, prosecutorial misconduct, and so on. The prosecutor might well lose his or her job and face bar disciplinary sanctions up to the loss of their license. One thing that will really make a court flip out is to disregard its ruling, and a prosecutor abusing the power of the office is a particularly terrible thing.
Boy, this little point has spilled a lot of ink, hasn't it?
Well, there are other ways to work out your aggressions. I could propose a few.
;-)
Remember, sticking anything into a real head (well almost anything) is a crime. You could put an eye out with that thing.
Do you really date back to the original potato head? I just remember plastic, going back 30 years. Also, as a parent, I know I'd just be dragging wizened sprouting potatoes out from under the sofa.... When I wasn't rushing my kid to the hospital to repair his brother's ideas on anatomical improvements.
You're mistaken on history, philosophy, law, and spelling.
Recheck those sources.
Huh?
Then 12:00 would be ambiguous -- meaning both midnight and noon?
Regardless, there is a standard understanding of what 12 AM and 12 PM are.
There, I've humored you enough.
I should have thought of that! Argh! If the protection applies (there are some weird exclusions, like if you are away from home) then the credit card protection is a practical way to contest piddling sums. In effect, you pay a little bit for their help every time you use the card.
If dealing with the theater is beyond reason, act quickly with your CC issuer and get payment frozen pending resolution.
Good advice.
(He can still see the movie at midnight, but I recommend a non-Twilight Zone theater. Check for clocks running backwards, giant blinking eyes, that sort of thing.)
Now that that's out of my system...
:)
As a matter of law, the theater is wrong. They can't later stick on the sign saying, "By the way, at this theter night means day." Even with the sign I think they'd be dancing on the edge of fraud. Mention this word to them, "fraud." You were induced to buy something that is worthless to you by their false representations. The only wrinkle is the discount price, which might theoretically have put you on notice, but I don't buy it.
As a practical matter, the amount involved is peanuts, which doesn't mean you aren't rightfully mad. It sounds like you explained things to them properly. Make sure you're talking to a real decisionmaker, as far up the chain as you can get. Write a letter even! Middle-lings sometimes like to assert their power unthinkingly.
The practical alternatives are not many. You could (1) picket; (2) badmouth them every chance you get; or (3) complain to the BBB and seek a settlement. I vote for #3.
Sympathies -- I hate being treated like that, as if their stupidity were my fault. (I wouldn't use that argument with them.
I hate it when that happens.
Elcomsoft papers
I'm sorry, you are dead wrong. I state it starkly because so many have this wrong.
Part of the evidence in the case was that Elcomsoft sold the product to several Americans, apparently with no precautions to respect American law even after being warned, effectively breaking our law on our soil. Was the U.S. wise to bring this case? Perhaps not. Is Elcomsoft guilty? I don't know. Did the U.S. have the authority? Probably.
Critically, ElcomSoft did challenge jurisdiction (esp. read the briefs and judge's decision). Elcomsoft raised unconvincing grounds (IMHO, and the judge's) and lost. Any challenge to jurisdiction here should focus on the questions raised in the briefs and the court's answers. For the purposes of this case, any other challenges Elcomsoft could have raised might have been great but have been waived. The judge may have been wrong, but that doesn't mean that jurisidiction is this sort of case is at all difficult to conceive.
I'm not defending here the substance of the DMCA or the law on jurisdiction, just describing.
Don't forget Skylarov is not on trial; his charges are apparently dismissed. His arrest was probably valid, but I'm not happy at all about the detention, as a matter of policy and civil liberties. If his arrest was illegal he could sue for damages, though I suspect he may not want to hang around in the U.S. after what happened. I wouldn't.
It is a fact that many, many people with minor depression have been helped by st. john's wort, and impotence is almost unheard of.
It is also a fact that it is rare for prozac to not cause some kind of sexual dysfunction.
Patently false; I would like to see the study. In my experience a sentence that starts with "It is a fact that" will be followed by an assertion backed by nothing. Numbers, please.
The truth is that really good studies don't exist on these Q's. Sexual dysfunction (impotence, delayed ejeculation, loss of libido -- so it affects women, too) is very common for Prozac, but reliable figures are that less than 50% of patients are affected, which means not having is SD is far from rare, and not having severe SD even farther from rare. It must be factored in that depression causes SD, that some forms of SD are treatable by reducing dose, adding Viagra, etc -- or switching to a different med., and that for some men delayed ejaculation is actually desirable. You are extrapolating far too much from your personal experience -- it applies only to your physiology -- and there are too many alternatives to Prozac to decide preemtptively that St. John's Wort is preferable, esp. considering the chiefly anecdotal evidence for its effectiveness. Relying on anecdotal evidence brought us problems like relying on leeches and bloodletting for medical care -- everyone said it worked great, why study it?
Prozac et al. are mostly reserved for major depression and preliminary interventions in lesser depression. Prozac is the oldest and possibly worst of the SSRI bunch -- about 20 years -- and has been improved upon, but everyone's heard of it. Meanwhile, everyone's heard of St. John's Wort but it is unlikely appropriate for even moderate depression, and in mild depression must nonetheless be used with caution and with an attentive ear to new studies showing it interferes with anti-AIDS drugs, etc. My post carefully recognized the difference. So does the NIH page. I was pissed for having bothering to look anything up for you. I am -almost- offended to be called "brainwashed" by the pharmcowhatever complex because you misread my comments, but know better.
If St. John's Wort works for you, great, but be aware it may well be a placebo effect, and that the herb (what we call a drug that grows in the ground; there's nothing natural about purifying an extract and ingesting it) may interact with other drugs, or have other effects unknown because it has barely been studied. Your subjective experience means nothing but that you think it works for you, which is nice but not proof it actually works. One day it suddenly may not work at all. Ideally no one would need to take any mood-altering anything. Depression is not ideal.
There are also a number of antidepressant outside the SSRI's -- Effexor, Wellbutrin, the tricyclics, and as a last resort the MAOI's -- plus a novel SSRI called Lexapro, a refinement of Celexa and introduced this year, that is claimed to avoid most side effects (the prelim data looks promising, but Celexa's also coming off patent next year, raising concerns Lexapro is more a revenue-enhancer). It is not mentioned much, but the SSRI's are not more effective than the tricyclics we've had for decades, but they have much better side effect profiles and, significantly, are much harder to commit suicide with.
I'm relating this not so much for you but anyone else who stumbles this way. Your situation is stable, but someone who is crashing hard and wastes time with SJW could not only waste time and money but get hurt. I consider accurate information of vital importance, regardless of who it makes look good. Don't forget people are making a lot of money of SJW; greed is not a risk only to the pharm companies; and it's only a matter of time before the FDA regains consciousness and regulates SJW as the psychoactive drug it is. Above all, I worry about people not getting the help they need, or getting help they don't need.
Your prescription of Prozac may have been inappropriate or dosed too high -- dosage is partly art with these drugs -- and Prozac is one of the worst of the ~5 SSRI's (Zoloft, Celexa/Lexapro, Remeron, Paxil, Prozac) for side effects (Remeron is supposed to be pretty bad for weight gain); and I mentioned the generic fluoxetine because some people do worry they don't have the money to seek treatment. If you're out-of-pocket the price difference is big, and even with insurance co-pays the generic is usually much less.
Why am I wasting time writing this? You already know everything, except all the stuff I could continue to write. Good luck.
This could be the fault of dumb laws or confused judges, it is unclear here. But unless you agree in principle with the court's ruling, the absolute best thing would be to deal with the source of the problem --- and it's not the newsletters! Authentication and signatures and so on are a long way from practical use, and surely they're unnecessary here. A responsible mailer requires confirmation from the user (authentication) and does nothing further if none is forthcoming. Sounds pretty good.
See how quickly a good idea (outlaw spam) can become a dumb idea (impede desirable mail)?
Good one! :)
But I'm a lawyer not a juror, damn it! If I were a juror I would meeky eat my jury instructions kibble. Although I could "cheat" unless sequestered, I wouldn't.
I've never served on a jury, and now anticipate it with a sort of mute horror. With luck, it will be a nice boring case with nice boring jurors. Without luck...
Stay tuned, literally, PBS's Frontline may tape jury deliberations in a TX capital case, if it is approved. I don't think it will be approved, but it would be interesting.
LOL!
Impotence? Did you know that death is an extremely common side effect of major depression?
You are confusing major and minor depression. The latter *might* at best be suitable for the Wort, at worst the Wort is a waste of money and diverts someone who need treatment from getting treatment.
But, sure, trust "trust herbalists and naturopaths that haven't been brainwashed by the medical industrial complex" who have no controlled studies, no regulation (becuase it's "not a drug"), and nothing monitoring them more than the profit motive. And ignore any studies that contradict what you want to believe. Very rational. If you're that much more horrified by impotence than depression, you're not particularly depressed.
Sorry. :)
:)
If you're taking St. John's WART, yuck. If Wort, well, the concern with St. John's Wort is that while it probably has mild antidepressant effects (some of which may be placebo), it also steps on other toes in the nervous system to cause complications in some individuals. Although I am indifferent as to the source of a drug, some people like that St. John's Wort is "natural." So are strychnine and a thousand other nature's poisons -- natural doesn't mean safe.
In terms of effect, commercial antidepressants are much more powerful and have fewer side effects. Prozac has just come off patent, so it's finally cheap. Taking St. John's Wort in conjunction with prescription drugs can cause problems, esp. if you don't tell your doctor.
There is also good reason to question self-medication. If the depression is more than minor, or even if it merely won't go away, do consult with a doctor. You can always say no to further treatment. If you say yes, be cautious to get a good doctor, they are not all created equal (I used to work at a psych hospital, I know).
Anyway -- do some research on the web, I have seen many postings concerning St. John's Wort, and it's best if you read until you're satisfied for yourself. Here is the NIH view.
Houses here in No. VA are outrageous by normal-world standards. A modest house in Arlington costs what a farm would ten miles out, and a palace in the South or Midwest. Meanwhile, prices in No. CA are other-worldly. I mean, using California housing prices as a basis of comparison would be like starting with Hitler as your standard of compassion.
Median prices in Arlington have risen roughly 50% in 5 years -- a bit of sticker shock.
To the poster: There are many many mini Silicon-Whatevers around the country, including here. Things have slowed down with the economy, of course.
I grew up in California, N and S, and think it's a great state. But I have no question my standard of living (except weather) is better here. Anyway I like snow, damn it, and my mentality is much more East Coast than West.
The application is obviously important to its appropriateness. It sounds like you may be toying with the idea of trying; if so first consult with a doctor. Many things promoted through alternative channels may have additional effects not mentioned by the distributor -- St. John's Wort, for example.
Check the NIH site for information.
Also, of course don't buy anything from spam on principle alone!
Nicely summed up.
As for this being a "virgin law," I'm not persuaded the jury needs to see it as a matter of course. On the other hand, the court can decide to give it to them if it likes. If the jury instructions are botched, that can be reviewed later, though note that the defense probably signed off on them.
As to why the jury asked to see the statute, that's speculation. Ask them after they're done.
I can't even believe the amount of insane misinformation out there on both jurisdiction and jury nullification. I just wasted a fair amount of time on the latter because I had to page through all these partisan pages all uselessly (mis)quoting each other before I finally switched to real legal sources to find real primary material -- which none of those sites apparently ever read. The rules and their rationales are so simple I have to figure some of these people are lying and others are accepting what they want to hear. I mean, really, this legal stuff is strictly 1L.
I don't know the holdings in Dougherty and Moylan -- but note that neither is a Supreme Court decision (F.2d is wrong reporter). I need access to the full original text to give an opinion. Moylan is 4th Cir. and apparently held that juries do have the power to nullify but because it is unlawful the defense attorney is prohibited from the jury to nullify. Logical.
Before you cite Sparf, 156 U.S. 51, 101-02 (1895), which the numerous pro-nullification sites bizarrely rely upon:
A minor dissent, IMHO the O.J. Simpson criminal trial was an example not of jury nullification but juror and judicial fumbling. I saw some of the dissenting jurors interviewed and was convinced the defense snowed them into enough confusion to acquit. All of the jurors were subjected to a grueling trial of ridiculous length -- in the real world it would have taken 2 weeks with no sequestration. That's just an opinion -- it might have been nullificiation or, for all I know, Simpson could not have been shown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the most orderly of trials. Hey, maybe he's innocence, though he did lose the civil trial.
I addressed the nullification issue elsewhere here.
An anecdotal account is interesting, but case law controls. Nullification may be "deeply embedded" in the American concept of jury but it is emphatically not a right of the juror. I posted a discussion and lengthy quote illustrating the state of the law.
I do know what the law is here, but not whether it should be something different, and I don't advocate the ideal system. Jury nullification is a clear example of a double-edged sword that works both for good and bad. There is no way to extinguish it fully, and it must be treated with the utmost suspicion.
I don't have time to really run this down, but here (U.S. v. Thomas) is a 1997 Second Circuit case with a good discussion of jury nullification. It has cites to Supreme Court decisions you can run down if you like, including to Sparf which jury nullification proponents often cite as having upheld jury nullification, when it did the exact opposite. I can only wonder how that is. I would be very interested in contrary evidence with appropriate citations.
In Thomas a juror was dismissed by the trial court on various grounds. The 2nd Cir. found this to be error on evidentiary grounds and remanded. The relevant section in full (U.S. v. Thomas):
I'm not finding fault with your gut reaction, but the rule stated is so basic I don't even know where to look it up! There is a third flavor, incidentally, called "mixed questions of law and fact."
I think you can find what you need in the rules of criminal procedure. The Cornell (where I went to school) site has ample links to the landmark cases and other materials.