Judge finds ‘increasing’ difficulty in seating marijuana juries

By David Edwards
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010 -- 10:21 am

It's becoming more and more difficult to find juries that will produce a guilty verdict in marijuana cases, according to a judge in Missoula County, Montana.
"I think it's going to become increasingly difficult to seat a jury in marijuana cases, at least the ones involving a small amount," District Judge Dusty Deschamps said Friday after potential jurors refused to convict a Montana man for having a 1/16 of an ounce of Marijuana.
An April 23 search of Touray Cornell's home found several used marijuana joints, a pipe, and some residue. He's is also charged with the criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
Cornell's neighbors had called the police because they thought he was selling drugs. The defendant admitted in an affidavit that he had distributed small amounts of marijuana.
One potential juror after another told the court that the would not convict the man for possessing a 1/16 of an ounce.

Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul told the Associated Press that the jurors staged "a mutiny.""District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll as to who might agree," the Missoulian reported. "Of the 27 potential jurors before him, maybe five raised their hands. A couple of others had already been excused because of their philosophical objections."

"I thought, 'Geez, I don't know if we can seat a jury," Deschamps said.
Paul and Cornell's attorney, Martin Elison, worked out a plea deal during recess.
Public opinion "is not supportive of the state's marijuana law and appeared to prevent any conviction from being obtained simply because an unbiased jury did not appear available under any circumstances," Elison wrote in the plea agreement.
Cornell entered an Alford plea Friday, not admitting guilt, but acknowledging there was enough evidence to convict him. The judge sentenced Cornell to 20 years with 19 of them suspended. Cornell was given credit for the 200 days already served.
"I think it's going to become increasingly difficult to seat a jury in marijuana cases, at least the ones involving a small amount," the judge said.
"It's kind of a reflection of society as a whole on the issue," he added.
"If more potential jurors start turning down nonviolent drug cases, our drug laws will change," Jason Kuznicki wrote for the blog The League of Ordinary Gentlemen.
Jury nullification often happens when a law is perceived to be unjust. During alcohol prohibition, nearly 60 percent of trials were nullified by jurors. Nullification was also often used in cases involving the Alien and Sedition and Fugitive Slave Acts.
In a more recent case, George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf suspected that jury nullification was used to spare former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

rawstory.com

Re-thinking Jury Duty

Maybe we should re-think jury duty. Maybe instead of saying "Oh no, how do I get out of this?" We should say, "Good!" Good because I'm going to find this person not guilty if he is charged with a victimless crime. Good because I'm smart enough to know what the judge says about it means nothing to me. It's up to me, I can set him free. Like if it's some kind of charge for having a gun. You don't have to listen to how he violated some state or local law and is guilty. You know that the constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Drug charges? So what? They should be legal for adults anyway.
On the other hand when it's the police on trial and there's a video of them beating the shite out of someone, find them guilty!
I think you get my drift, if you are lucky enough to get jury duty, do the right thing for your fellow human beings, don't get caught up in all the legal technicalities, don't be bullied, don't be a wimp.

Jury Nullification

Jury nullification is the process whereby a jury in a criminal case nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her. Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law.

Strictly speaking, a jury verdict which rules contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of invalidating statute. Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the evidence and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, especially when that practice has drifted from its constitutional origins.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
—Thomas Jefferson

The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. ”
—John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States

It is not only his right but also his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
—The Works of John Adams
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if I am ever lucky enough to be on a jury you can bet a not guilty vote will be coming from me if the defendant has been charged with a victimless crime. No matter what the ex-lawyer judge instructs me to do. I hope you too will do the same if the "crime" shouldn't even be a crime in the first place.