Community | December 19, 2010 | 72 comments

Jury Pool In Marijuana Case Stages Mutiny; Won’t Convict

source: http://www.jackherer.com/archives/jury-pool-in-marijuana-case-stages-mutiny-wont-convict/

Image
JackHerer
In a move sure to sweep the land, a jury pool has refused to convict the defendant of a marijuana charge.

​​In what could grow into something much bigger in future cases, potential jurors in Missoula County District Court staged a revolt Thursday, taking the law into their own hands and making it clear they would not convict anybody for having less than 2 grams of marijuana.

The tiny amount of marijuana police found in Touray Cornell’s Missoula, Montana home on April 23 became a big point of contention for some members of the jury panel, reports Gwen Florio of The Missoulian. One juror after another said there was no way they would convict somebody for having 1/16 of an ounce of pot.

One juror wondered aloud why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, according to a “flummoxed” Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul, who called it “a mutiny,” Florio reports.

When District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll to find who might agree, of about 27 potential jurors before him, around 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 to address the situation.

Deschamps said that in his nearly 30 years as a prosecutor and judge, he had never seen anything like it.


http://www.jackherer.com/archives/jury-pool-in-marijuana-case-stages-mutiny-wont...
  1. groups:
    Community,   Art and Style,   H.E.M.P.,   Make Marijuana Matter,   6 more
  2. tags:
    Marijuana,  Cannabis,  Hemp,  Court,  2 more
  3. recommended by:
    ras_menelik
  4.     
    |

72 comments // Jury Pool In Marijuana Case Stages Mutiny; Won’t Convict

  • KevinRogers
  • William_Beck
    • +1
      William_Beck  

    • Musicjohnnie, you couldn't be more wrong. Judges are obviously better versed in the law than anyone on a jury, so if the jury's purpose is to determine whether the defendant has broken a law or not, a judge could do a much better job. This leaves nullification of an unjust law as the only reason to have juries. Juries must judge not only the defendant, but also the law. They are a defense against unjust laws and oppresive government.

    • 1 year ago
  • Conniepae
  • trut
  • toyotabedzrock
  • remanns
    • +1
      remanns  

    • It seems that different states, differ in their stances on this -

      State Language on Jury Nullification
      LINK -
      http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf

      -The Post took a dim view of this and suggested that jury nullification is an aberration, a kind of
      unintended and unwanted side-effect of our constitutional system of letting juries decide cases. But
      the Post couldn’t be more wrong. Far from being an unintended side-effect, jury nullification is explicitly
      authorized in the constitutions of 24 states.
      ALL CRIMINAL CASES
      The constitutions of Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, and Georgia currently have provisions guaranteeing the
      right of jurors to “judge” or “determine” the law in “all criminal cases.”

    • 1 year ago
  • CalgarC
  • musicjohnny
    • 0
      musicjohnny  

    • Even though I absolutely feel like the sentiments of the jury are correct in this case, and I in fact do agree with them, I don't feel that the jury should delve in to legislation of law and have the ability to set prescient as they would do in this case by overturning and "on the books" law like this.

      Take a typical lawsuit for example: somebody sues somebody else for something and the judge makes a ruling, from that a prescient is set. That means that future cases that are similar can reference that case and use it to support their ruling (i.e. Brown v. Board of Education had a wide impact in helping with desegregation because based on that one ruling, ALL similar cases could be ruled the same way) so the impact is bigger than just that one case.

      So you might say "ok so what's your problem them? The jury is basically doing the same thing as the judges you're talking about, right?" Well, no. There are a few reasons why: first, it's a jury making the decision rather than an elected/appointed judge. A judge is versed in law and has been through law school and has been through a confirmation process to be able to make those decisions, while a jury has not. The main reason however is that a jury can not change the law. It's simply not their constitutional or legal right to redefine or change the conditions or standards of a law that has been created by a congress or other proper legislation. Am I saying that every law should be blindly followed like some kind of a robot as some have suggested? OF COURSE NOT! There are some laws that are just WRONG and should be changed (like this one as a matter of fact)
      BUT (and this is a really big "BUT") a jury should not be able to change them. There are already established ways to change or repeal a law which can and have been easily implemented by ordinary citizens to GREAT effect. It's simply not right for 6-12 people to single-handedly alter a law (especially on that hundreds of people in a congress or thousands of people in an electorate have voted for).

      The bottom line is it's not how our judicial system was designed to work. It was designed to judge, not to legislate or changed established law. It's not their job, it's not their right, it's not their place. I've got no problem with people taking their own feelings and emotions and opinions in to the courtroom as a jury member, but that emotion can't supersede evidence, facts, and established law. Like I said, some laws like this one deserve to be change and I'm all for that, but there are established ways to do that, but it's not through legislation by a jury.

    • 1 year ago
  • CitizenHill
    • 0
      CitizenHill  

    • The legalization of cannabis use for whatever purpose is for the people to decide, not that of a nanny govt influenced by special interests.

    • 1 year ago
  • littlwarrior
  • ashgallagher
    • 0
      ashgallagher  

    • certainly - this is an interesting issue during an interesting time in the country. but it's also, generally, being handled correctly on a state by state basis. - california voted it down this last election. when i spoke with locals (that voted for to legalize) why it might get voted down, they weren't surprised. for as much as the tax money might absolutely benefit any other number of economic causes: dealers in particular - don't want it to be a legal biz where they have to pay tax in the first place. and then of course there are the federal laws against it - which should be amended to the states anyway. b/t those two points of contention, it seems, that legalization will take time. i'd say, though, that with states leniences on medical marijuana - the u.s. isn't far. certainly this jury case protests in the process' favor.

    • 1 year ago
  • RMattnerTours
    • +1
      RMattnerTours  

    • Alcohol prohibition didn't work, when will the authorities realise the same applies to marijuana. Think how much tax the Government could earn on sales and give the police more time to deal with the hardcore stuff.

    • 1 year ago
  • bertkamp
  • ayipis
  • CreditFigaro
    • +1
      CreditFigaro  
    • ayipis:

      I'm glad to see you've conducted such a scientific experiment to measure the effect of marijuana on an individual over one's life time. Golly, it didn't even require any federal funding!

    • 1 year ago
  • noxidereus
    • +2
      noxidereus  

    • Awesome! 2 grams is nothing!

      The bad guys aren't the normal everyday citizens who are smoking cannabis. The bad guys are the ones who destroy lives, take children away, put people in cages, mislead the general population, etc. If anyone belongs in a cage it is the creeps who destroy other people's lives because of laws based on lies, fear, and discrimination. Whoever owns the rhetoric owns the perception -- the perceived reality. That is why the bad guys can call themselves the "good" guys. They've even got uniforms to really prove that they're the "good" guys! The harm they cause to actual good people is incalculable. What they are is terrorists.

      Own your perception! Don't let others fool you!

      Free the weed!
      Free America!
      End tyranny and corruption!

    • 1 year ago
  • rksilz
    • +3
      rksilz  

    • Marijuana became illegal because the oil companies didn't want Henry Ford to power his cars on hemp. We should all rebel against these stupid laws and I don't even smoke it. As a woman I know we would have a lot less domestic violence him people used marijuana instead of drinking.

    • 1 year ago
  • trut
  • shanklinmike
  • Karl_Kissner
    • +3
      Karl_Kissner  

    • just a nother clear act of the government not listening to the people.this country belongs to the government not the people. if did not belong to the government then the judge and prosecutor would have listen to the jury but they did not!! and if you think that you are free "just dont pay taxes on your home and it wont be your home for long the government will take it and i say if it was mine then no one can take it from me but it is not mine it is theres and WE ARE NOT FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • 1 year ago
  • shanklinmike
  • CreditFigaro
  • progressive67
    • 0
      progressive67  

    • This may apply to the marijuana industry as well;
      Executive Order 12291 Website ; Keep it Legal
      On Nov 24, 2010 the DEA emergency scheduled the indole JWH-018, the primary ingredient in K-2 and other incense brands, effective 12-24-10.
      eo 12291 states the DEA may not do this if that action will negatively effect the US economy by more than $100 million per year.
      The K-2 brand alone posted $80 million. Keep in mind , there are 6 major brands.
      Not to mention 1 head shop in lexington KY posted a $250,000 month for March, 1 month before KY's ban. States where it is legal until the 24th have tripled sales as the responsible adults stock up.
      Hemp fiber is also a $3 billion industry for Canada, but American farmers are not good enough?

    • 1 year ago
  • nanac
    • +1
      nanac  

    • I really hope that this act will open up the doors to equality for all Americans, and reverse the decades of injustices for minorities(primarily African Americans)! The American Justice System is a very big joke , to Americans and the rest of the world.........

    • 1 year ago
  • Almibry
  • carslut
  • Almibry
  • carslut
  • Almibry
  • Conniepae
    • +6
      Conniepae  
    • Image

    • If you don't know the facts about cannabis hemp, Jack Herer's book is available to read on the internet. Complete with footnotes and documentation to back up the facts. http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/

      Chapter 1 – OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF CANNABIS HEMP
      Chapter 2 – BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE USES OF HEMP
      Chapter 3 – NEW BILLION DOLLAR CROP
      Chapter 4 – THE LAST DAYS OF LEGAL CANNABIS
      Chapter 5 – MARIJUANA PROHIBITION
      Chapter 6 – MEDICAL LITERATURE ON CANNABIS MEDICINE
      Chapter 7 – THERAPEUTIC USE OF CANNABIS
      Chapter 8 – HEMPSEED AS THE BASIC WORLD FOOD
      Chapter 9 – ECONOMICS ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
      Chapter 10 – MYTH, MAGIC & MEDICINE
      Chapter 11 – THE (HEMP) WAR OF 1812, NAPOLEON & RUSSIA
      Chapter 12 – CANNABIS DRUG USE IN 19TH CENTURY AMERICA
      Chapter 13 – PREJUDICE: MARIJUANA AND JIM CROW LAWS
      Chapter 14 – MORE THAN SIXTY YEARS OF SUPPRESSION
      Chapter 15 – THE OFFICIAL STORY: DEBUNKING “GUTTER SCIENCE”
      Chapter 16 – THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

      Too important to ignore. One can't be spun with lies, if one knows the facts. It's time to educate ordinary Americans with facts and stop them from being spun with lies and disinformation, by self serving politicians.

    • 1 year ago
  • Sarah_Honea
    • +1
      Sarah_Honea  

    • Martin Luther King Jr. Had implored all citizens to follow just laws and not to follow and protest unjust laws. In My mind the Cannabis Laws in the country were made specifically to segregate members of the population to be deprived of liberty and subject to socio-economic ostracization.

      This was what Nixon banked on people: To take 'care' of the " problem" without taking care of the the 'Problem'. This is what every President since Nixon has expanded/upheld. Obama might I add is following the same fuzzy-shitty logic.

      The citizens are waking up- the only way to put the genie back in the bottle is more oppression and propaganda.

    • 1 year ago
  • Conniepae
    • 0
      Conniepae  
    • Sarah_Honea:

      Almost 2 years ago, Senator Jim Webb announced, he was looking into the prison problem in America. What happened? Did he do it? He stated it would take around 18 months and he would make recommendations, on how to fix the prison problem in America. We have more people in prison than ANY other country in the world.

      If he had followed through on his endeavor, he would have come to the conclusion, cannabis consumers were causing the overcrowding of our prisons. Prisons are for criminals, not political prisoners to keep corporate America protected from a natural competitor (cannabis hemp).

      Hemp could be an industry unto it's self, making environmentally friendly products to replace the synthetic polluting products on the market today. Cannabis could compete with alcohol, which is destroying families all over the country. Many people would not choose alcohol, if cannabis was an alternative. Cannabis is not as dangerous as alcohol.

    • 1 year ago
  • trut
  • shanklinmike
  • EugeneNixon
  • TruthBTold
  • shanklinmike
  • Jeremy_Benson
    • +6
      Jeremy_Benson  

    • Scrolling through this comment section and reflecting on past current articles I realize that marijuana is one thing the current community is pretty much in agreement upon. I am wondering how many current users actually smoke and how many support legalization even if they don't smoke. I'm also wondering if there is anyone on current who doesn't support its legalization. I wish we could take a poll...

    • 1 year ago
  • slippyt
    • +2
      slippyt  
    • Jeremy_Benson:

      I'd be willing to bet that a good amount of pro-Mary J Current users are maybe light/moderate smokers who carry on responsible lives, or just people who see that is simply a plant that does not deserve the punishments currently given. It is kind've funny that weed stories usually make it in the top ten, but it's not like they're simple-minded stories.. they're informative and interesting usually. Hopefully we will live to see the day when these harsh laws are done away with.

    • 1 year ago
  • musicjohnny
    • -7
      musicjohnny  

    • You know...depending on how you look at it, this could also be a step in a VERY wrong direction. First let me state that I personally don't think that anybody should get in trouble for that little pot, but at the same time, it IS the law, and to me it's REALLY scary that a jury is making a ruling that goes against established law. Yeah, this time they're on the right side of the issue, but who's to say that all jurys will be as logical? What could be next? Letting someone go on a murder charge cause the victim was known to be a little annoying and he had it coming? Or a conviction because the guy just has a shady look about him? If I was on trial, I want a jury that convicts or doesn't convict based on the law on the books, not based on what they think personally about the crime. It's the laws that need to change, not the bias of the jury on a particular day.

    • 1 year ago
  • JohnGalt
  • Jeremy_Benson
    • +3
      Jeremy_Benson  
    • musicjohnny:

      The jury has a right to decide that a case is not prosecutable even if the defendant clearly broke a law, as in this case. The self defense plea in violent criminal cases is a well known aspect of this part of the law. This is the justice system actually working.

    • 1 year ago
  • andreii
  • TruthBTold
  • shanklinmike
  • Almibry
    • 0
      Almibry  
    • musicjohnny:

      That thought crossed my mind too though in my opinion it's not scary, it's a relief. Jurors already give verdicts of guilty or not guilty based on what they personally think about the crime (like letting a rapist get off easy because "that's just how boys are" or "her clothes were 'inappropriate'", or convicting blacks twice as often as whites for drug related crimes regardless of the fact that whites use and sell drugs just as often as blacks). The only reason this is news is because so many of the potential jurors disagree with the law that they can't even go to trail. Part of the selection process requires lawyers to question the potential jurors and disqualify the ones who are deemed "biased". In this case, the judge is saying he can't fill all the spots with unbiased jurors.
      What's scary to me is how the judicial system might react to it if it becomes more common.

    • 1 year ago
  • Mark701
    • -1
      Mark701  
    • musicjohnny:

      I think you're going a little overboard with your concerns. If American juries start letting murderers go then I have to assume that the entire legal system has fallen apart. There 's a big difference between refusing to convict someone for a foolish charge and letting murderers go.

    • 1 year ago
  • noxidereus
    • 0
      noxidereus  
    • musicjohnny:

      Your concerns and people who think like you on this matter is what is really scary. The reason why it is scary is that you can't get past the fact that laws are laws, rules are rules. No matter how ridiculous, no matter how cruel, no matter how nonsensical and inhumane, no matter whether or not the laws themselves are corrupt they should be blindly followed?

      Unless I misunderstand you, you wish people to behave dogmatically and never let their own feelings or conscious come into play. Even if a law is blatantly wrong (like this one), people should just blindy obey commands like robots? That is far more fearful to me than people standing up for each other against unjust laws.

      When people think like you, so dogmatically, as in "the law is the law" no matter what, I get that same feeling I get when I watch the movie Deliverance. It's scary when ignorance is coming at you and you know you cannot reason with it. Squeal like a pig! Oink!

      I for one am very happy that our humanity has not been completely assimilated by the collective. You should be too. Generally speaking, the laws (about anything) themselves are not necessarily more reasonable than a jury's interpretation of any given situation. In both cases, we are still just a bunch of glorified apes who have opinions. To dogmatize what a bunch of apes think at any given time, write it in stone, and view it as some kind of holy, and be unwaivering in its interpretation is wrong. You should not be afraid when people challenge dogma. You should breathe a sigh of relief.

      With dogma there is no reasoning. There is only blind obedience. Blind obedience leads people to do horrible things to each other.

    • 1 year ago
  • musicjohnny
    • +1
      musicjohnny  
    • JohnGalt:

      Ok, I think people have misunderstood what I was saying a little bit. Even though I absolutely feel like the sentiments of the jury are correct in this case, and I in fact do agree with them, I don't feel that the jury should delve in to legislation of law and have the ability to set prescient as they would do in this case by overturning and "on the books" law like this.

      Take a lawsuit for example: somebody sues somebody else for something and the judge makes a ruling, from that a prescient is set. That means that future cases that are similar can reference that case and use it to support their ruling (i.e. Brown v. Board of Education had a wide impact in helping with desegregation because based on that one ruling, ALL similar cases could be ruled the same way) so the impact is bigger than just that one case.

      So you might say "ok so what's your problem them? The jury is basically doing the same thing as the judges you're talking about, right?" Well, no. There are a few reasons why: first, it's a jury making the decision rather than an elected/appointed judge. A judge is versed in law and has been through law school and has been through a confirmation process to be able to make those decisions, while a jury has not. The main reason however is that a jury can not change the law. It's simply not their constitutional or legal right to redefine or change the conditions or standards of a law that has been created by a congress. Am I saying that every law should be blindly followed like some kind of a robot as some have suggested? OF COURSE NOT! There are some laws that are just WRONG and should be changed (like this one as a matter of fact)
      BUT (and this is a really big BUT) a jury should not be able to change them. There are already established ways to change or repeal a law which can and have been easily implemented by ordinary citizens to GREAT effect. It's simply not right for 6-12 people to single-handedly alter a law (especially on that hundreds of people in a congress or thousands of people in an electorate have voted for).

      The bottom line is it's not how our judicial system was designed to work. It was designed to judge, not to legislate or changed established law. It's not their job, it's not their right, it's not their place. I've got no problem with people taking their own feelings and emotions and opinions in to the courtroom as a jury member, but that emotion can't supersede evidence, facts, and established law. Like I said, some laws like this one deserve to be change and I'm all for that, but there are established ways to do that, but it's not through legislation by a jury.

    • 1 year ago
  • musicjohnny
    • +1
      musicjohnny  
    • noxidereus:

      Ok, that's not what I'm saying at all...not even close. I am ALL about laws being changed (especially this one!) However, it's not a jury's job to do that. I wrote a more detailed response to someone else so you can check that out so see more of my point, but anyway, I'd never suggest that a dogmatic law of ANY kind could ever be good, but I have to contend that it's not a jury's place to legislate that.

    • 1 year ago
  • artemis6
  • JohnGalt
  • bailey78
    • +5
      bailey78  

    • This is a step in the right direction. Now only if we could get the folks down here in Texas to do the same thing We would be Happy campers.

    • 1 year ago
  • echelgreen
  • harleyblueswoman
  • Conniepae
  • PunkRockLibertarian
  • Conniepae
    • +1
      Conniepae  
    • PunkRockLibertarian:

      They have misled people to believe things, which were not factual. They have spun opinions into bad law. Cannabis tracks back to a time long before propaganda and American politics, yet that fact was removed from educational material in America. They led people to think cannabis was new and unknown. In other words they lied. Remove the facts, then lie. How convenient.

      Many people have turned against their own family members, due to spin and disinformation and a healthy dose of 'Reefer Madness'. Shame on them. No one should be afforded the luxury of lies. When spin, madness and lies are used to make law, we are all victims.

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • shanklinmike
  • TopScruffy
    • +5
      TopScruffy  

    • I live in Missoula and I'd have to say this story pretty much sums up our nice little city. Reason rules here and people have a lot of friendly compassion. I served jury duty 2 months ago, too bad I wasn't part of this one.

    • 1 year ago
  • Almibry
  • vixxxen618
  • Dagum
    • +6
      Dagum  

    • Jury nullification. Love it.

      Maybe that group that posts on here is finally starting to see their work pay off.

    • 1 year ago
  • critic
  • shanklinmike
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • shanklinmike
  • Timmit
  • Sparky2U
    • +10
      Sparky2U  

    • What a truly idiotic DA. Wasting money on such a minor infraction, he deserves to be shown the door for show boating a non issue like this. Good for the Jury perhaps this moron will grow a pair.

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • ras_menelik
more from Community:
from the community

top videos