Office with evidence invalidating

In the past, it was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials might be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins.

In most modern Western legal systems, however, judges often instruct juries to act only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, the weight accorded to the evidence, to apply that evidence to the law as explained by the judge, and to reach a verdict; but not to question the law or decide what it says.

Everyone agrees, however, that it is very, very unlikely that anything out of the ordinary will happen Monday.

Similarly, juries are routinely cautioned by courts and some attorneys not to allow sympathy for a party or other affected persons to compromise the fair and dispassionate evaluation of evidence.

These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification.

The name electors may bring up images of chosen people, picked out of the population for their sage wisdom. Really, they’re just people chosen by state political parties. Some electors are picked at congressional-district and state conventions, while in other states it is the party leaders who pick the electors.

There are some well-known names in the mix (Bill Clinton is an elector, for example), but most of the electors are far from household names.


Leave a Reply