...I got my information from wikipedia here. And yes, I know wikipedia is not the best source for information.
Yet you refereed to Wikipedia knowing it's not a good source?
...I got my information from wikipedia here. And yes, I know wikipedia is not the best source for information.
Yet you refereed to Wikipedia knowing it's not a good source?
So, I shouldn't have showed where I got my information from?
So, I shouldn't have showed where I got my information from?
Wow, I didn't know that! Learn something new every day, as they say.
I'm not an expert. As a matter of fact, I got my information from wikipedia here. And yes, I know wikipedia is not the best source for information. But as is with everything legal, there is room for interpretation.
There's an interesting discussion of this very article and section of the Indiana Constitution here.
But the Supreme Court in Sparf v US stated that while it is a defacto right of the jury, they don't have to be informed of it."It may not be amiss here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court, to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have, nevertheless, a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court, for as on the one hand it is presumed that juries are best judges of facts, it is, on the other hand, presumable that the courts are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision."