Doug Darrell Acquitted Of Marijuana Charges Through Jury Nullification In New Hampshire

Huff Post

A New Hampshire Rastafarian facing felony marijuana cultivation charges was declared not guilty on Friday because a jury believed that punishing him for the offense would be unjust.

Now, this is the power of the people. This is a clear message to us and everyone that OUR effort to spread knowledge and vocalize our ideas is working.

This is the information war (no not AJ).

This is us posting on Facebook, this is the alternative media. Keep spreading the message it's working.

a reply to: onequestion

So let me understand this.

You are saying that you are happy that social media can influence a jury to disregard law and make judgments according to popular opinion?

originally posted by: onequestion
Huff Post

A New Hampshire Rastafarian facing felony marijuana cultivation charges was declared not guilty on Friday because a jury believed that punishing him for the offense would be unjust.

Now, this is the power of the people. This is a clear message to us and everyone that OUR effort to spread knowledge and vocalize our ideas is working.

This is the information war (no not AJ).

This is us posting on Facebook, this is the alternative media. Keep spreading the message it's working.

This is wonderful news. A huge step in the legislation of a plant that does way more good than harm.

If a few people want to be deadbeat stoners so be it they are not causing problems.

People shouldn't be able to flaunt the law like that. The police who arrested this Rasta for honoring his sacrament should just volunteer to serve their time for a stupid arrest and be proud to do it ("Gramps, did they really arrest you for growing a common plant?" "Yes, grandson, this was the way of the world back in the early 21st century. Nobody really knows why, but when President Chelsea Clinton issued her 'Dudes, get real' executive order ordering all law enforcement to stand-down on this issue, things changed".)

To arrest somebody for growing a flower is the ultimate overreach.

People are waking up.

They arrest a guy for growing a flower.

Then they celebrate by drinking theirself stupid with fermented fruit.

Something is wrong with this picture....My hat is off to my fellow citizens.

a reply to: Senators

Yes I am.

I am very happy that people in the US are slowly waking up to the fact that we are imprisoning people for life for growing a plant.

I am happy that people are taking the power back from the government and putting a stop to this idiocy and I hope the trend continues.

As a matter of fact I hope this extends out into other unjust laws.

It's a clear sign that the population is waking up out of their slumber and deciding for themselves what's right and wrong and you know what? That's a damn good thing.

a reply to: onequestion

You ever think about, oh I don't know, maybe changing the law first?

When you advocate for simply ignoring laws, even those you do not like, it never leads to a good ending. You end up with things like the OJ Simpson verdict where people now decide court cases based on their feelings and beliefs rather than anything to do with the law.

a reply to: Senators

Oh my god.

That's the only thing that comes to mind with your perspective.

originally posted by: Senators
a reply to: onequestion

So let me understand this.

You are saying that you are happy that social media can influence a jury to disregard law and make judgments according to popular opinion?

Err.....Yes, that is what he is saying.

The law is unjust. Our Representatives are too cowardly to change the law.

Or they are bought off. We the People still have some power.

A non-violent protest is the American way. The nullification is a form of protest (see OJ).

originally posted by: Senators
a reply to: onequestion

So let me understand this.

You are saying that you are happy that social media can influence a jury to disregard law and make judgments according to popular opinion?

That is the entire point of having a jury. This is the common law in action.

I would really like to insult you, but that goes against the T&C.

originally posted by: Senators
a reply to: onequestion

So let me understand this.

You are saying that you are happy that social media can influence a jury to disregard law and make judgments according to popular opinion?

According to the defendant he was growing it for his personal medical and religious use. If this is true then they had no right charging him in the first place. It is the same as Native Americans having the right to use peyote in their religious practices.

So, the law is no longer on the statute books?

a reply to: Senators

You ever think about, oh I don't know, maybe changing the law first?

First the people that make the laws have to be influenced to change the laws. This is one way of showing those in government we want the laws changed because as long as people remain silent the laws will never be changed.

a reply to: Senators

Sure, changing the law is best but at the time this went on, it was a law, so changing it wans't an option. Are you saying that the people of New Hampshire would be better off convicting him and throwing him in jail at the tax payer's expense?

I say good for them, let the guy be. He wasn't intending to distribute or sell or give to minors or whatever, it was for his own personal use on his own land in his own home. This kind of case case is exactly what jury nullification is intended for.

a reply to: Senators

Yes. If you blindly believe all laws are just than I'm sorry you're just the right amount of brainwashed for the govt to love you.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Senators

You ever think about, oh I don't know, maybe changing the law first?

First the people that make the laws have to be influenced to change the laws. This is one way of showing those in government we want the laws changed because as long as people remain silent the laws will never be changed.

Apparently he's not familiar with the laws already changing on pot? What is it, 22 states legalized it for medical use (which includes New Hampshire)? Two states legalized it all together and surprise, surprise, this November the people of Washington DC are going to vote to legalize it as well. Ironically DC already has medical marijuana but the Feds still classify it as a schedule 1 drug with NO MEDICAL USE. So dumb this gov't is so no wonder people are ignoring them.

originally posted by: Senators
a reply to: onequestion

So let me understand this.

You are saying that you are happy that social media can influence a jury to disregard law and make judgments according to popular opinion?

God's law trumps Man's law...

"in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."
Matthew 15:9

a reply to: Senators

You are saying that you are happy that social media can influence a jury to disregard law and make judgments according to popular opinion?

They were allowed that prerogative under the law so I guess technically no harm done.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury concludes that a defendant is technically guilty, but fails to convict the defendant on the grounds that the law in question is unjust. While jury nullification is legal, judges frequently do not inform juries of this power, and may prohibit defense attorneys from doing so, according to the University of Missouri.

In this case the judge allowed it to be known so perhaps agreed with the sentiment.

As per the recommendation of defense attorney Mark Sisti, Judges James O'Neill read aloud to the jury:
"Even if you find that the State has proven each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find the defendant not guilty if you have a conscientious feeling that a not guilty verdict would be a fair result in this case."

It's time the world grew up and stopped throwing innocent people into prison for something that is in reality no different to brewing your own beer.

a reply to: gortex

And let's not forget the many cases of jury nullification during the civil rights era when white juries would often let off white men who had murdered blacks.

If you support this type of act it can work both ways. The road to tyranny is often paved with good intentions.

a reply to: Senators

And let's not forget the many cases of jury nullification during the civil rights era when white juries would often let off white men who had murdered blacks.

Regardless of philosophical arguments the right for jury nullification is a part of the law and open to be used in cases where it's deemed acceptable , I agree this is one of those cases.