 |
The Pocket Constitution
usconstitution.net has printed a special edition copy of The Constitution of the United States that has been proofed word for word against the original Constitution housed in the Archives in Washington, D.C. It is identical in spelling, capitalization and punctuation. This 48 page Pocket Constitution also includes the Bill of Rights, Amendments 11-27, The Declaration of Independence, and a complete index of the Constitution.
Item Number: 202
Size: 3.25 X 6 while closed
Now only 4.99 which INCLUDES shipping and handling!
|
|
Constitutional FAQ Answer #26
<<Previous Question |
Question Index |
Subject Index |
Constitutional Index |
Next Question>>
This is part two of a three-part question pertaining to the "Nanny
Trial" in Fall, 1997.
Q26. "By what authority did Judge Zobel overrule
the jury? The 7th amendment seems to prohibit this."
A. The key is "the rules of common law." The right (indeed, the duty) of a
presiding judge to nullify the finding of a jury is well established. The
judge, in theory, is supposed to listen to the evidence almost like a 13th
juror. If he decides that the jury made a bad choice, based on the law, then he
can throw out the decision. The powers of judges vary from state to state; I've
heard that the power of judges in Massachusetts is very high.
Q27. "And also, what rights do Deborah and Sunil
Eappen have as relatives of the victim? Could they sue Judge Zobel on
constitutional grounds?"
A. None. Victims have no constitutional rights, as victims. It is, perhaps,
sad to say, but there it is. This was, however, a state trial, and they may
have certain rights as victims in Massachusetts. I haven't ever heard, though,
of a judge ever being sued by anyone involved in a criminal case because of a
particular decision in that case. Unless there are some specific grounds in a
specific state, I don't even know what kind of grounds one would have to sue a
judge because of a decision or ruling in a court case.
URL: http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q26.html
