Honor, murder and "the law".

[jmm99]

.... the guy was handcuffed when he was shot.

that is a definite problem.

Which is why in the thread on the case I suggested the "Anatomy of a Murder" defense.

That was a real case, tried in Marquette MI by an older lawyer I knew, Johnny Voelker, whose story is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Traver

Anatomy's "bio" is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_of_a_Murder

The real trial is summarized here (last 2 pp. of 10):

http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.c...ch/anatomy.pdf

Now, for the bottom line - closing comment by one of the jurors (end p. 10):

“I was thankful that the trial was over. I felt that the lieutenant was justified in what he did. I was a soldier and a soldier is trained to defend and that’s what the lieutenant did—defend his wife. I don’t think he was temporarily insane. I felt he had a right to do what he did. Why should he suffer the rest of his life to let a man do that to his wife?”

That is what I mean by "jury nullification" - you argue a legal theory as the direct defense, but the real object is to convince the jury of the indirect defense that you can't argue directly.

[slapout9]

That is what I mean by "jury nullification" - you argue a legal theory as the direct defense, but the real object is to convince the jury of the indirect defense that you can't argue directly.

Yep, women's rights issues and sympathies are a lot bigger in this country to. Get a jury that is half female

[jmm99]

the overall juror profile will determine whom you challenge or not. SOP for me was to background all jurors in the array (usually 72 give or take). Be nice to have a jury of vets who spent half of their military careers in burn wards.

Actually, old-fashioned redneck male types who believe in the protection of women - and in a little old-fashioned populist justice - would seem better.

[jmm99]

(Schmedlap)
Am I way off base with this?

but you are coming close. Don't know what identifiable ghetto group(s) is that or those of which you speak. I do know of a group that certainly believes that "Any law directed at their ... behavior is immediately viewed as a government reprisal against their way of life". Visit Stormfront and you will find 31 pages of "Legal Issues - Criminal and civil law affecting activists". I don't think this forum should go there - others may differ.

-------------------------------
As to the general substantive issue, IMO, "law" (unless you believe it is a brooding omnipresence in the sky) is a tribal code - the code of the dominant tribe that establishes it. If the dominant group is inclusive enough, its code will represent the norm of a majoriity of the total population. Within that population, there will be other tribes. Their codes will either supplement or conflict with the dominant tribal code.

If you are in one of the minority tribes, you can accept or reject the dominant code - "For someone who values honor more than anything else, a tribal code is not subordinate to law." If you happen to live in an authoritarian society, your value of "honor" (in your minority tribal code) will result in a bullet in the back of the head, sentence to a gulag or confinement to a nuthouse (in its kinder and gentler phase). Even in a liberal democracy, the dominant tribe will enforce its code.

[slapout9]

Actually, old-fashioned redneck male types who believe in the protection of women - and in a little old-fashioned populist justice - would seem better.

Hadn't thought of that,but sounds pretty good. Out of my lane so to speak but I have heard that there are actually "Jury Consultants" who do nothing but specialize in this.