In American, the jury would repeal the law?

With the debate origin Chen Taihe, he thought: in the America, juries can nullify laws. And I say not so. This is not about quarrel, they talk about the legal. Chen Taihe jury to repeal laws that, if there are several people for Gospel truth. This paper tries to science on the issue. Micro-blog understand USA legal friend is also a talented men still remained in concealment. I when something. If you think I'm what is said is wrong, please point out. I do not want your wrong understanding USA jury system.

Note: Chen Taihe think Yan Fu translate "jury" jury "is wrong, should be translated into" people by jury". So he in people by jury is what we usually say the jury. This paper follows now habitually called, or called the jury.

I began reading on his retort, his article "on the Chinese people by jury in Anglo American courts function misunderstanding" ("era law" in 2002 2 monthly). I told him I most of the viewpoint of this paper agree. But don't agree with him the sixth part "people will group has the highest power in American in society". Especially against what he said the jury "to repeal legislation" said. Because this does not tally with the facts.

First posted his original screenshots, and express my opinion

This is the part of the screenshots, even including the annotation.

Here is my advice.

First of all, he this part do not refer to any one clause America any state or federal law in any proceedings. USA is a case law country is right, but the procedure is highly codified. The establishment, function of the jury, each procedure code clear. Chen Taihe this saying is USA jury system, but did not mention or reference to any procedure code, this incredible. There are 50 states America, plus the federal 51 sets (although similar but not identical to each other) litigation system. Each litigation system is divided into civil and criminal litigation. Add up to 102 procedure code. And Chen Taihe the words did not result in any one, who knows what he said is what state (or federal) jury?

Secondly, he cited the jury to the most important basis repeal laws, is "American complete information people by jury Association (Fully Informed Jury Association) issued" the people must Handbook "(Juror's Handbook)". But the association is a non-governmental organization. Can't see any government background. Neither the government nor the legislature folk organization, it issued a pamphlet, without citing any procedure code, said the jury has the power to repeal laws, the jury has the power? While Chen Taihe also believe firmly, without reservation?

Third, read Chen Taihe discusses the jury can argument part this paragraph of word repeal laws in, I felt completely don't get "the jury to repeal the law" this conclusion. Although it has been mapped, here again the paragraph text:

"The profound meaning, people will have a mass of waste by Chinese people not to interpret that is, any one of ordinary people, are able to repeal legislation. When a law, whether the president command or congressional legislation, some people feel injustice, unreasonable, in other countries of continental law system, no one can make effective response, except through legislation to repeal the law. ButIn American, does not need any complex procedures of legislation to abolish the old laws and the new legal unreasonable, when people decide when the evil law is law, anyone can abolish it. The principle is this: in general, in Britain, the convicted criminal, requires the unanimous people will, that is to say, 12 people will must 12 votes in favor, to the conviction of a violation of the laws of the state. So, when 12 people, 1 people for the legal complaints, do not agree with the legal conviction of the accused, so, this is to be hanged people will group (a hung jury), the whole trial is a current trial (mistrial). Such a flow instance cannot again trial, because under the fifth amendment to the constitution, not to anyone "repeat the risk" (double jeopardy), which prohibits the placement will be the two time the risk judgment, so, can't again trial, the first trial nor to convict, then only release the defendant. "Manual" is that people will clearly tell you, people will group is better than Congress legislative power. The recent Wikileaks founder Julia Assange chose the asylum in the UK, in fact, was born in the common law countries Australia, he is very understand the common law, he knew that even if America government wanted him dead, in an English court, as long as there is a member of people will agree with him, not by the British court convicted. And his enemies are aware of this, so just to extradite him to Sweden to accept the trial.
The people by jury in civil cases has the highest power is not a criminal case so distinctive. However, to understand the people by jury final authority in civil cases, as long as the understanding American constitution stipulated by jury decided people, the fact, is not to be rechecked:
Article seventh: in common law cases, the dispute is worth more than $20, by the people the right of trial by jury should be retained, and, by people by jury decided that, in the United States in any court, should not be re examined, except in accordance with the rules of the common law.
In America, according to the letter can not be re examined (re.examined) things, only the people by jury people must fact. People must group people will not review (unreviewable), and America government regulations, orders, and USA Congress, the State Council Legislative, law is in stark contrast to review. Because the latter is facing a constitutional or not judicial review (judicial review), the judicial review, the president, Congress, the governor, legislature, the lower court judge orders, decisions can be effectively review. However, for the people by jury people will, is defending its privileges can't review. An important reason for this is why people will always maintain the appeals court decision group of people. The highest power people by jury, Pollock and Maitland is its decision as "the voice of the nation" to express, for countries to agree and obey the voice."

The passage from "the theory is that the" first to last, in any case do not know how I would be able to deduce the "jury to repeal the law" this conclusion. He just said: the jury can go to the guilty. The jury to ignore established laws of Congress, the guilty person to find release. In this sense the jury is higher than the legislative power, but also careless. But this is similar to the "amnesty" power, how a jury to repeal the law? What is called repeal laws? Repeal laws is the law henceforth invalid, useless, a waste; today the case not only useless, but had no use. This is the law was "abolished". A guilty person is placed in accordance with the law, how did it come into law was abolished? Because the jury sympathy a thief, felt sorry for him, won't he be sentenced, and agreed that he was not guilty -- this is explained from stealing not breaking the law?

But hung jury this phrase, state law is not clear, but the Federal Code may no longer use. I full text search on the website USA code house, not found. Are interested can go to searchHttp://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtmlIf you house website interface ugly words, can use the Law School of Cornell University America code page searchHttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

According to Chen Taihe, if the 12 jury unable to reach an agreement, so is hung jury, only mistrial, only the defendant acquitted, and also not retrial. But according to the criminal law of the federal rules America (Federal Rules of criminal procedure) does not seem to be so. The thirty-first paragraph D: if the court found that the jury was unable to form a consensus, can dissolve the jury and announced the mistrial (source: If the poll reveals a lack of unanimity, the court may direct the jury to deliberate further or may declare a mistrial and discharge the jury.). At the same timeThe B 3 rules: if the jury unable to reach a consensus on some counts, the court can declare mistrial in these facts; andThe government on any outstanding charges a jury of any defendant in initiating retrial. (source: If the jury cannot agree on a verdict on one or more counts, the court may declare a mistrial on those counts. The government may retry any defendant on any count on which the jury could not agree.)

This and Chen Taihe "as long as there is a jury objection → hung jury → mistrial → can only be acquitted, not the retrial" claims to the contrary. EspeciallyThe federal rules of criminal procedure law Rule 31 (b) (3) made it clear that the:After the government announced the mistrial, can be any one pending charges launched retrial on any one defendant!

Chen Taihe also said, the jury's decision is final, decisive. But the federal rules of Criminal Procedure Law Article 2 paragraph 29 C said:If the jury brought in a verdict of guilty, the court may revoke this decision and found not guilty. (source: If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal.)This sentence is clear, the guilty verdict the jury can be court revoked. The supreme "Finality" and where to start? Chen Taihe also cited the Constitution (he had forgotten to say that the seventh amendment amendment). But he also said it is about civil litigation and non criminal proceedings. But he said "Finality" refers to all the guilt or innocence, apparently referring to criminal proceedings.

This is a federal law. State law too, I can't one one survey. But included a 1979 California case in criminal law in our textbooks. People v. Navarro (serial number: 99 Cal. App. 3D Supp. 1, 160 Cal. Rptr. 692, 1979 Cal. App. 237.) case is very simple, the defendant took a piece of wood, was accused of stealing. He argued that he thought this piece of wood is not the lord. Trial court directed the jury to answer the question: when the defendant that this idea of this piece of wood without the Lord's reasonable? The jury's answer is not reasonable. Then the defendant sentenced. The defendant appeal. The court of appeal that the court of first instance to the jury is wrong. To answer not the defendant that idea is reasonable, but should ask: when the defendant is really think this piece of wood without the Lord? Therefore, the appeal court reversed the trial court (ruling based on the jury's decision). Visible, at least in some states, the jury in a criminal case Award "Finality" is also very doubtful.

Finally, exaggerated description "Chen Taihe any ordinary people, are able to repeal legislation", "in America, does not need any complex procedures of legislation to abolish the old laws and the new legal unreasonable, when people decide when the evil law is law, anyone can abolish it," from the it also said impassability. The legislation Congress, was elected members, after the discussion of painstaking research, after a round of voting, plus the president signed only by the complicated procedures. The resulting legal, if any one of the ordinary people can say that waste is waste. Where the social order? The law passed by the representatives of the people, a person want to waste waste, this is democracy, or despotism?

To sum up, I think that "the jury to repeal the law" is groundless statement. Think what have I say wrong, please point out. Thank you.