Juries are giving pot defendants a pass

LA Times ^ | 12-24-10 | Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times

[cougar_mccxxi]

Reporting from Seattle — It seemed a straightforward case: A man with a string of convictions and a reputation as a drug dealer was going on trial in Montana for distributing a small amount of marijuana found in his home — if only the court could find jurors willing to send someone to jail for selling a few marijuana buds.

The problem began during jury selection last week in Missoula, when a potential juror said she would have a "real problem" convicting someone for selling such a small amount. But she would follow the law if she had to, she said.

A woman behind her was adamant. "I can't do it," she said, prompting Judge Robert L. Deschamps III to excuse her. Another juror raised a hand, the judge recalled, "and said, 'I was convicted of marijuana possession a few years ago, and it ruined my life.' " Excused.

[cougar_mccxxi]

“The job of a juror is to determine guilt or innocence based upon current law. If they disagree with the law, they should make that known to the prosecution as the jury is being selected and let them know that they will find the defendant not guilty, not matter what. If they disagree with the law, they should try to have the law changed. They should not legislate from the jury box.”

The prior sounds like something from, “Hitler’s Handbook for Jurors”...

My friend, jury nullification is exactly that, the last defense against unjust laws

[cougar_mccxxi]

WOOHOO from me too!!!

[gunsequalfreedom]

Thanks for the link.

[Bobalu]

I can’t go along with you on this.

I would not let a little thing like the law or the facts get in the way of acquitting someone I felt was guilty of no moral wrong.

[null and void]

It’s not like they would let a little thing like the law get in the way of persecuting you if you were in their way.

[Navy Patriot]

WOOHOO from me too!!!

I take no pleasure from this activity, but I realize that a government with a manipulated legal system is far more dangerous than even serial killers.

The Marxist cancer murdered at least 66 million Russians and Slavs, and 100 million Chinese in Gulags, and "reeducation" camps, who were GUILTY under law of offenses equivalent to over parking in the states.

But they were GUILTY under LAW.

Many even here do not understand that law has nothing to do with justice.

If you tell 'em you know that, you'll never get on a jury.

[cripplecreek]

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

[Right Wing Assault]

Juror’s take an oath. These oaths vary. What if the one you take says something to the affect that you will base your decision only upon the law? Do you break that oath? Or do you refuse to serve? What DO you do?

[Bobalu]

You break the loathsome oath.

Any oath that would bar a juror from serving or acting on his/her own conscience is just wrong. Following such an oath would be acting against the intent of the constitution. Why even have a jury of peers if only the letter of law and the facts matter? Just let judges decide...arrrgh

[cougar_mccxxi]

“THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

Fantastic!

[jmacusa]

Next time they call you for jury duty tell them “I can tell when somebodys guilty just by lookin’ at ‘em’’. You won’t hear from them again.

[brityank]

The job of a juror is to determine guilt or innocence based upon current law.

US Supreme Court Opinions disagree with you:

But does the jury's power to veto bad laws exist under our Constitution?

It certainly does! At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford1 . The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

So you see, in an American courtroom there are in a sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. And they are there with the power to review the "law" as well as the "facts"! Actually, the "judge" is there to conduct the proceedings in an orderly fashion and maintain the safety of all parties involved.

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...."

Juror's Handbook PDF

As others have said, you don't get "a jury of YOUR peers" but rather one of the prosecutor's and judge's peers, and the judge instead of being an impartial referee has morphed into a grand attorney general assisting in the prosecution. The federal Justice department has become the Just-Us coalition with the help and assistance of Congress.

[onedoug]

I sat on a case involving two black males who had sold crack to an undercover officer. At deliberations some pushy black guy assumed the role of foreman, then voted not to convict in the face of overwhelming evidence. Some dingy white female went along with him. It was very depressing to say the least. So this really cuts both ways.

[cougar_mccxxi]

“What if the one you take says something to the affect that you will base your decision only upon the law?”

You base your decision on the law which allows you to base your decision as a juror on your conscience. Simply because your rights are not explained to you does not mean you may not invoke those rights.

[Navy Patriot]

Juror’s take an oath. These oaths vary.

As usual, we reference the Constitution for the answer.

Little known fact: Government employees, public "servants", officers of the court, etc. are BOUND by the Constitution, civilian jurors are PROTECTED and empowered by it.

Any oath that would require a juror to enforce an unconstitutional law or act by a government employee, is unconstitutional and invalid.

Notice that a civilian does not have to swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but all the officers of the court and government employees MUST.

This is because the entire government is controlled, restricted and limited severely by the Constitution, but the JUROR IS NOT SO LIMITED.

The jurors duty is to justice and oath is to truth, and the two are easily compatible.

[cougar_mccxxi]

Agreed...liberty has its price.

[sigzero]

Selling it? You should go to jail.

[Navy Patriot]

Thanks for post #52, nicely done

I tried a "says who?", but he didn't tumble to it.

[marsh2]

One of our inalienable rights is the right of conscience. We cannot be forced to surrender that right because of court “rules” that the jury is only to find fact and not law in the matter.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

This happened *once*, and the media is all over it. As much as I like the idea of jury nullification, c’mon. Juries acquit all the time, in de facto nullification, but they are smart enough not to brag about it.