Comments on: Fieger jury deliberates http://overlawyered.com/2008/05/fieger-jury-deliberates/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:39:32 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Fieger gets off http://overlawyered.com/2008/05/fieger-jury-deliberates/comment-page-1/#comment-19235 Fieger gets off Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:17:01 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7069#comment-19235 [...] those reimbursements of employees who donated to John Edwards? Just one vast coincidence, not a purposeful way of evading federal campaign finance laws. Now that the verdict’s in, could we please repeal the campaign finance laws in question [...] [...] those reimbursements of employees who donated to John Edwards? Just one vast coincidence, not a purposeful way of evading federal campaign finance laws. Now that the verdict’s in, could we please repeal the campaign finance laws in question [...]

]]> By: Supremacy Claus http://overlawyered.com/2008/05/fieger-jury-deliberates/comment-page-1/#comment-18752 Supremacy Claus Sat, 31 May 2008 11:50:32 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7069#comment-18752 Lawyers call that an inculpatory mistake of non-criminal law. For example, a babysitter allows a kid to smoke a cigarette, not knowing the regulation against that. Usually ignorance of the criminal law is not a defense. This is ignorance of non-criminal law, and more permissible. Questions: Is such a defense allowed to a licensed lawyer? If this a matter of law, and not of facts, should that argument be made to the jury, instead of to the judge? Lawyers call that an inculpatory mistake of non-criminal law. For example, a babysitter allows a kid to smoke a cigarette, not knowing the regulation against that. Usually ignorance of the criminal law is not a defense. This is ignorance of non-criminal law, and more permissible.

Questions: Is such a defense allowed to a licensed lawyer?

If this a matter of law, and not of facts, should that argument be made to the jury, instead of to the judge?

]]>