What would you have voted for(jury)?

Question

Recent case I was a juror in...Person had guns he inherited from a deceased father..there was a law since he was a an ex con he couldn't own weapons for 10 yrs...not part of his original probation plan..seperate law.
He completed all his probation requirements, never got into any trouble for almost 10 years. He aquired the weapons 29 days prior to the end of the 10 yr law prohibiting him from weapons.
He didn't know there was such a law nor was he told of such a thing.
The DA claims he knew, the old court which the prior conviction took place destroyed all witten records after 7 yrs according to there record keeping policies. There was no way to verify if he knew of the law either in writing or verbally.
Some jurors saw that the letter of the law must be followed while others thought the DA didn't prove the case that the intent to flaunt the law was there.I voted to aquit because the DA did not have enough proof the suspect knew of the law & the intent wasn't there. Guilty or not?

There was an executor found irrellevent. and how he was caught..he turned in paper work to transfer the weapons in his name. So his intention to flaunt the law wasn't there.

Answer 1

I would have voted to acquit. A previous answerer said ignorance of the law is no excuse. Perhaps that's technically correct, but in your question the D.A. said he knew, but they couldn't prove that. If you make a statement like that, they are required to prove it. Also, ignorance of the law is an acceptable excuse if it is an area of the law that is not general knowledge. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a phrase that people throw around as if it is always true without exception. That's not a correct statement. Ignorance of common areas of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of obscure legal requirements is an acceptable excuse. How can you prove the defendant deliberately violated an obscure area of the law? Where's the intentional misconduct? He didn't go buy these guns; he inherited them. I think the D.A. should never have filed this case. Nine years, 11 months and a day should have counted for something. He went almost 10 years without any problems and the death of his father and an over-zealous prosecutor created the problem, not the defendant.

Answer 2

I agree ignorance is not bliss...but the DA has to have proof. He can't just randomly prosecute (unless you live around Durham NC--poor Duke boys).

There is no way he could have known his dad was going to die that particular day and no way he could have had his dad edit the will ahead of time to make someone else hold on to them for 30 days. Most laws say he cannot purchase a weapon due to terms of his probation. He did not purchase them.

Very few poor people set up a trust or have a high power lawyer look over the will--so they would not have known about those options.

I am all for the letter of the law, but this was outside his control. Usually it takes more than 30 days for the will to be read and divided anyway, so this was the fault of the lawyers for dividing the estate early.

Most importantly, is how the DA found out and prosecuted. Most places wouldn't waste time nor resources for that case b/c you want to spend the time on important cases and cases that are more "winable." For me, guilty or not guilty is going to depend on the DA's case. Does he have enough proof? Legally obtained proof? And is there any way to prove the convict knew that the guns were in the inherited stuff. If he inherited an entire storage facility, there is a good chance he had no way of knowing a gun was part of it. Just like if you inherited land that was growing pot--if you had nothing to do with it and had not discovered it without reporting it, you are not guilty.

Answer 3

If the case is as you have presented, i would have voted to acquit.

the DA did not make the case of his flouting the law and with most, if not all, of the records destroyed, plus there was never any open naed intent, he goes.

The law is about forgiveness and I would not let the previous 119 months go down the drain

Answer 4

First time i did no longer see the "Annyone from Tokio lodge" and that i became like "WTH the place are they??" and then I voted for the somebody else one. Lol then went lower back and located them and have been given at a loss for words on why Taylor Lautner. Wow i'm stupid. Oh properly, a minimum of Tokio lodge is triumphing!! poll: i could ought to assert invoice, he's the 1st guy it rather is ever made me breathe strange, and that i'm no longer purely saying that the two lol.

Answer 5

Not guilty. No proof of intent. Now the DA...like that one involved in the case at Duke...he should be strung up.

Answer 6

The DA's case was flimsy. I vote to aquit only because of that. Seems to me the DA would have more important things to do than that.

Answer 7

Executor of his father's estate was, imho, legally responsible for determining whether the bequests were legal or should be countermanded by the Probate Court and an alternate bequest made.

Who was Executor?

If the suspect was Executor, he failed in that duty.
If someone else was, that someone failed in his duty.


you can take it from there.

Answer 8

not. This is a case of overzealous prosecution. The kind of thing that gives american justice a bad name.

Answer 9

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's what I was taught. If you were to live in a certain state, it is understood that you will know the laws and abide them. The laws of the individual states are public information, so he has no excuse for not knowing them, according to the law.