Jury refuses to convict for marijuana possession

[William Wallace]

https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_d6b1aaca-edfc-527f-ad11-f1691fdc6e3b.html

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week.
Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt.
They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.

No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.
In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll as to who might agree. 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,’ ” said Deschamps, who called a recess.
And he didn’t.

During the recess, Paul and defense attorney Martin Elison worked out a plea agreement. That was on Thursday.
On Friday, Cornell entered an Alford plea, in which he didn’t admit guilt. He briefly held his infant daughter in his manacled hands, and walked smiling out of the courtroom.

“Public opinion, as revealed by the reaction of a substantial portion of the members of the jury called to try the charges on Dec. 16, 2010, 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,” according to the plea memorandum filed by his attorney.
“A mutiny,” said Paul.

“Bizarre,” the defense attorney called it.
In his nearly 30 years as a prosecutor and judge, Deschamps said he’s never seen anything like it.

[GuineaPig]

Of all the places for it to happen, Montana?   

Good on the jury, though.

[orcus116]

How is this a revolt? They're absolutely right. It's a waste of time and money.

[yeshaberto]

I thought it had to be an ounce before it even became a crime?  or is that state to state?

[El Barto]

State to state.  In Tejas any amount is a crime, albeit a pretty trivial one.  My brother spent a night in jail over 1 joint.  In this guys case, he actually was dealing out of his house.  He just only had the 1/16th when they busted him.  From what I read, he was mainly just setting up deals for others to get free smoke. 

[PowerSlave]

Maybe it's time for people to realize that we're simply making the same prohibition mistake that was made in the early 20th century. Just like alcohol, this is a substance that people are going to get their hands on in any way that they can. We should have learned from our own relatively recent history that criminalizing this creates more problems than it solves.

[XJDenton]

How is this a revolt? They're absolutely right. It's a waste of time and money.

Its a revolt because they aren't doing their job.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

How is this a revolt? They're absolutely right. It's a waste of time and money.

Its a revolt because they aren't doing their job.

This.

Really, it's against the law, and as it stands the jury should have convicted. why anyone would say this is a good thing is beyond me. HEY NEXT TIME I HAVE JURY DUTY I'M GONNA REFUSE TO CONVICT BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH A LAW

[William Wallace]

How is this a revolt? They're absolutely right. It's a waste of time and money.

Its a revolt because they aren't doing their job.

This.

Really, it's against the law, and as it stands the jury should have convicted. why anyone would say this is a good thing is beyond me. HEY NEXT TIME I HAVE JURY DUTY I'M GONNA REFUSE TO CONVICT BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH A LAW

Historically speaking, at least in America, the potential jurors had precedent on their side. If someone was to be prosecuted under an unconstitutional law, it was the jury's job to prevent it.

[ReaPsTA]

This.

Really, it's against the law, and as it stands the jury should have convicted. why anyone would say this is a good thing is beyond me. HEY NEXT TIME I HAVE JURY DUTY I'M GONNA REFUSE TO CONVICT BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH A LAW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

By blindly following the law, Juries aren't doing their jobs, and attorneys are encouraging it.

[El Barto]

And aside form good-ole jury nullification, there's the simple truth that people have emotions and convictions.  That's one of the reasons potential jurors get bounced during voir dire.  Last time I got called, the fellow next to me told the prosecutor quite honestly that he didn't like cops and didn't feel he could trust one to be honest.  That made him unqualified to sit on a DWI jury.  Similarly, if I think laws prohibiting marijuana are bullshit, it's pretty likely that they're not going to want me on a jury.  Now, they can certainly tell me to put my opinions aside and act solely on the evidence and the letter of the law, as they could have in Montana, it's the expectation of a jury, after all.  That's a pretty shaky thing to rely on with a 12 member jury who are all opposed to the law, though.  If it were a murder trial, that's probably what would have happened, but in this case there really wasn't any point.   

[PlaysLikeMyung]

This.

Really, it's against the law, and as it stands the jury should have convicted. why anyone would say this is a good thing is beyond me. HEY NEXT TIME I HAVE JURY DUTY I'M GONNA REFUSE TO CONVICT BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH A LAW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

By blindly following the law, Juries aren't doing their jobs, and attorneys are encouraging it.

Wait a second. Are you actually suggesting that we shouldn't follow the law? Or, at the very least, we should ignore laws we dis agree with? Then what's the fucking point of law in the first place?

The job of a jury, as I understand it, is to convict (or not) based on how what the LAW says is right or wrong, opinions be damned

[lateralus88]

Regarding any law, rule, regulation and whateverthefuck the government puts out the public, I always consider the same advice someone once gave me. "Question. Everything."

[PowerSlave]

This.

Really, it's against the law, and as it stands the jury should have convicted. why anyone would say this is a good thing is beyond me. HEY NEXT TIME I HAVE JURY DUTY I'M GONNA REFUSE TO CONVICT BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH A LAW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

By blindly following the law, Juries aren't doing their jobs, and attorneys are encouraging it.

Wait a second. Are you actually suggesting that we shouldn't follow the law? Or, at the very least, we should ignore laws we dis agree with? Then what's the fucking point of law in the first place?

The job of a jury, as I understand it, is to convict (or not) based on how what the LAW says is right or wrong, opinions be damned

What about sodomy laws ect. ect... that several states/towns still have on the books that were written several years ago. Should someone be prosecuted on such arcane laws just because they remain unchanged? They are the law afterall but, I think that most of us can agree that they're silly and don't fit our society.

[Orbert]

Checks and balances.  When you're part of a jury, you're acting as part of the judicial branch of the government, and it's your duty to not just blindly follow laws, but consider their constitutionality, and whether the law itself is outdated or otherwise just doesn't make sense.

[pogoowner]

That's all I have to say to that jury.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Checks and balances.  When you're part of a jury, you're acting as part of the judicial branch of the government, and it's your duty to not just blindly follow laws, but consider their constitutionality, and whether the law itself is outdated or otherwise just doesn't make sense.

Oh man if you think I trust the average citizen to understand constitutionality...

[Sigz]

Checks and balances.  When you're part of a jury, you're acting as part of the judicial branch of the government, and it's your duty to not just blindly follow laws, but consider their constitutionality, and whether the law itself is outdated or otherwise just doesn't make sense.

Um... what? I had jury duty over the summer and the judge specifically said it wasn't the jury's job top interpret the law.

[Chino]

How is this a revolt? They're absolutely right. It's a waste of time and money.

Its a revolt because they aren't doing their job.

This.

Really, it's against the law, and as it stands the jury should have convicted. why anyone would say this is a good thing is beyond me. HEY NEXT TIME I HAVE JURY DUTY I'M GONNA REFUSE TO CONVICT BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH A LAW

The only way American's can get a point across today is to break the rules/laws in large numbers.

[Orbert]

Checks and balances.  When you're part of a jury, you're acting as part of the judicial branch of the government, and it's your duty to not just blindly follow laws, but consider their constitutionality, and whether the law itself is outdated or otherwise just doesn't make sense.

Um... what? I had jury duty over the summer and the judge specifically said it wasn't the jury's job top interpret the law.

How do you decide if someone is guilty or not without interpreting the law?

I know what you're saying, and I had jury duty this past summer as well and heard what I'm sure was a very similar speech.  But there's no way in hell I'm going to vote to send someone to prison for literally 1/16th of an ounce of pot.  I'll sit there and hang the jury, claiming the prosecutor didn't prove his case or whatever, before that happens.  They dragged my ass down there to play my part; I'm gonna play it.  Here, everyone agreed that it was stupid.

In most places, jaywalking is against the law.  Are you going to send someone to jail for 30 days because he didn't cross at the corner like your mommy taught you when you were little, or wait for a light to give him permission to cross the street when there's no traffic anyway?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

How do you decide if someone is guilty or not without interpreting the law?

I see it this way: A jury's job is to agree/disagree that a defendant committed an illegal act, as it pertains to the law. A jury does not decide whether or not a law is constitutional/unconstitutional (or stupid, for that matter). That power belongs to the courts/judges themselves.

Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you should just throw it away. We have laws in place for a reason

[William Wallace]

How do you decide if someone is guilty or not without interpreting the law?

I see it this way: A jury's job is to agree/disagree that a defendant committed an illegal act, as it pertains to the law. A jury does not decide whether or not a law is constitutional/unconstitutional (or stupid, for that matter). That power belongs to the courts/judges themselves.

Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you should just throw it away. We have laws in place for a reason

That's the prevailing view today, but the guys who set up our country had a lot to say about this, and they believed this was an important role for juries.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

they did?

Judicial review wasn't even established until 1804, unless I'm misremembering my history

[El Barto]

Judicial review is unrelated to jury nullification.  It's a common-law practice that was around before the creation of our system. 

[zerogravityfat]

rules can be changed, the jury is just pointing out that this should be one of the occasions where the punishment is not necessary so i applaud them.

[skydivingninja]

There used to be laws against black people sharing the same spaces with white people.  PLM, are you suggesting that the juries in THOSE cases that were brought to court should have stuck to the full letter of the law?  No, of course not (because AFAIK, you are no white supremacist).  "But wait," one might say, "that's different!"  No, not really.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

There used to be laws against black people sharing the same spaces with white people.  PLM, are you suggesting that the juries in THOSE cases that were brought to court should have stuck to the full letter of the law?  No, of course not (because AFAIK, you are no white supremacist).  "But wait," one might say, "that's different!"  No, not really.

I think a majority of those 'laws' were actually 'de facto' segregation as opposed to 'de jure'. De facto meaning by practice, not by law. In that case there wasn't a law per se to oppose, just a practice

[PowerSlave]

There used to be laws against black people sharing the same spaces with white people.  PLM, are you suggesting that the juries in THOSE cases that were brought to court should have stuck to the full letter of the law?  No, of course not (because AFAIK, you are no white supremacist).  "But wait," one might say, "that's different!"  No, not really.

I think a majority of those 'laws' were actually 'de facto' segregation as opposed to 'de jure'. De facto meaning by practice, not by law. In that case there wasn't a law per se to oppose, just a practice

I thought that they were known as "Jim Crowe" laws and that most of them were actually on the books? Will have to do some investigating.

[hefdaddy42]

There used to be laws against black people sharing the same spaces with white people.  PLM, are you suggesting that the juries in THOSE cases that were brought to court should have stuck to the full letter of the law?  No, of course not (because AFAIK, you are no white supremacist).  "But wait," one might say, "that's different!"  No, not really.

I think a majority of those 'laws' were actually 'de facto' segregation as opposed to 'de jure'. De facto meaning by practice, not by law. In that case there wasn't a law per se to oppose, just a practice

There were laws.

[XJDenton]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_crow_laws

[The Texas Pirate!]

the laws concerning personal safety such as anti recreational drug use laws, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and anti smoking laws are a direct violation of constitutional rights.
in my honest opinion.

so bravo to the jury, bravo.

democracy in action, remember:  WE THE PEOPLE.

[Orbert]

Hey, Pirate!  Good to see you around here again!

[The Texas Pirate!]

Hey, Pirate!  Good to see you around here again!

been a while aint it. been without a computer.

[Orbert]

So are you back for a while now?

[ResultsMayVary]

I'm a little late to the party, but here it goes:

If someone is accused of murder, the Jury hears the evidence and determines if the defendant did in fact commit the crime of murder based on the evidence presented to them. The law defines murder very clearly, so it is a pretty clear line. Everyone should agree with that.

The same thing can be said about the marijuana possession charge. The law says a certain amount of possession is illegal, then the Jury must convict (or not) based on the evidence presented to them. That seems pretty clear.

People refusing to convict someone on marijuana possession (based on personal beliefs) when the defendant had obviously broken the law is ridiculous. They honestly should be ashamed of themselves.

Do your damn job, people. Hear the evidence and determine whether or not they broke the law as it is written.