JasonOfOrillia: It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.
vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.
ReverendJasen: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.Obviously, the only "right" conclusion they want is "guilty." Do not question authority citizens.
farkingfun: thurstonxhowell: Teiritzamna: farkingfun: However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......But that would be irrelevant to the actual charge.Which is why it's being excluded from the trial.From the Article:The state is arguing that Hershberger violated the law by selling milk (raw) while he was not licensed.If he were selling milk to a processing plant (for which licences can be obtained) without a license the charge would be appropriate. It sounds like the judge is allowing an end-run because the laws don't currently exist to prosecute.
Russ1642: Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.
Teiritzamna: et us assume the statute for murder requires a showing of:Unlawfulkillingof a humanby another humanwith intent to do so
Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?
ReverendJasen: This is not justice. The reasons and circumstances that leads to an infraction of law are important and need to be known to truly apply justice.
ChaoticLimbs: I've done jury duty twice, and when it's clear that there's an elephant in the room that the jury is not permitted to look at, I feel that my only option is to choose not guilty. The presence of such a thing is enough to provide reasonable doubt in my mind. Especially if the defense is the one prohibited from mentioning things. That's a red flag.
Teiritzamna: Rule 403 of the Federal* Rules of Evidence:The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.That's why
Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.I think they're trying to avoid a pointless tangent that will turn the case from focusing on whether or not this guy filled out his forms correctly into a debate on the merits of whether or not he should be able to sell raw mil-bong in the first place.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 28 2017 14:10:06
Runtime: 0.251 sec (251 ms)