Alphecca

The motion has been filed, not accepted by the Judge.

The motion is also only to prevent them arguing matters of law to the jury; they can still make such an argument to the judge, and ask the judge to drop the case as based on unconstitutional law.

The judge is, of course, less likely to do this than the jury, if only because judges care more about precedent, and precedent is firmly on the side of the State's case.

Judges have long been opposed to jury nullification, which is what this boils down to (juries deciding the law is invalid for whatever reason, rather than simply applying it to the case).

jurors are duty bound to first try the law, then the facts of the case if they determine the law is appropriately constitutional.

Sigivald is correct, this is a legal question that the judge, or later some 3 justice appellate panel will get. This just illustrates the problem with the SCOTUS. By "interpreting" the Consitution, the SCOTUS actually changes the meaning of the words, which turns into dangerous precedent. Look no further than the takings clause or the free exercise provision which has been subsumed by the "separation or church and state" view that is so in vogue.

Sigivald,
I understand you are describing how things work now as far as arguing matters of law to the judge and not the jury. However, why is it that matters of law cannot be made to the jury? Is it because judges don't want juries to interpret the plain meaning of the written laws? Since this is a criminal case any law that the defendant has broken must be written by the legislature. If the written criminal law is so "confusing" that the jury cannot interpret it correctly than perhaps there is a problem with the law itself.

The whole purpose of a jury based system is to ensure a defendant receives a fair trial and that the defendant is tried by his peers and not the government.

It makes me very suspicious when the government does not trust the jury of peers to hear facts concerning the law itself. Why does the government feel it is necessary to suppress this evidence in the first place? If a case is so cut and dry the government should have no worries right? It appears the government does have some worry and that should worry all of us.

Fincher hasn't got a Davidian's chance.