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

a reply to: onequestion
I'd bet to wager a coke or pepsi is worse for you than a bowl or joint of marijuana is.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Senators
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.

Hmm. Murder vs religious freedom. I can see where that can be confusing. I fail to see the correlation between an out dated system(hey, they slapped their wives around too) to a process that is dealing with an outdated law.

And once again, why don't you just change the law rather than advocate that jurors do that on their own? If the law is so outdated that a jury won't convict on it then it should be no problem to elect representatives to do it either.

This allowing people to decide on the spot what laws they like and which they do not has absolutely no consistency and sends our system toward an anarchical form of tyranny by the minority.

Why should a panel of 12 people overrule what the majority has put in place through their representative government? How anyone can find that right is beyond me. Even the founding fathers, well the one that spoke about this issue, said that while nullification should still be present, the jurors should act according to what the law states. Wilson was his name I believe.

a reply to: Senators

Majority? You really have no idea how marijuana came to be illegal do you?

Do you have any idea that the majority would like to see it legal?

Do you know there are medical marijuana states?

Do you know 2 states have fully legalized marijuana, with more on the way (DC, AK, OR)?

We are changing the law, state by state without the help or permission of the federal gov't.

Yes, as our Founders wrote on Hemp paper and lit their homes with Hemp Oil.

Our Founders would not believe a plant they depended on would be made illegal.

If a Congressman back in our Founders time tried such a thing.

They would of broke out their Hemp rope and hung them.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Senators

Majority? You really have no idea how marijuana came to be illegal do you?

Do you have any idea that the majority would like to see it legal?

Do you know there are medical marijuana states?

Do you know 2 states have fully legalized marijuana, with more on the way?

We are changing the law, state by state.

That is wonderful and the jury decisions should reflect that law. How they came to be laws in the first place is irrelevant, if you do not like them then change them.

Here is what you are advocating for now. One man could get charged with marijuana possession and be let off because of a sympathetic jury not wanting to follow the law yet the next week a different man could be sent to prison for the exact same charges.

Is that a proper way to run a legal system or would it better to have one set of laws that everyone must follow and where the punishments are the same? There is a very good reason why courts have ruled over and over that juries do not need to be informed of nullification and that is because it taints the system. If people know they can vote however they want with no regard for the law then why are they even going to listen to the case?

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Yes, as our Founders wrote on Hemp paper and lit their homes with Hemp Oil.

Our Founders would not believe a plant they depended on would be made illegal.

If a Congressman back in our Founders time tried such a thing.

They would of broke out their Hemp rope and hung them.

Which is probably why the Founders put in a way for people to ensure that their will is reflected in the laws.

a reply to: Senators

In a perfect world you are absolutely correct.

The problem is...Our World is all screwed up.

a reply to: Senators

We get it.

You have a boner for the law makers and would abide by it if they made a law making you kill your family.

Hope they change it before you go ahead and prove your adherence to the law!

a reply to: Senators

No, they're very relevant, especially when you're saying a majority of Americans want their representatives to makes marijuana illegal. You couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, you're just making it up.

Your "what if" scenario is irrelevant. Fact is, America has more people in prison than anyone else in the world, including North Korea. That's amazing! Another fact, the majority incarcerated are there because of failed drug laws, namely marijuana and to continue, they're mostly black and Hispanic. To support marijuana being illegal is basically supporting racism.

Tell me, why are you so against this? Are you anti marijuana or just a lawyer who fully supports any and all laws, no matter how unjust?

a reply to: Senators
Marijuana should NOT be, or should not have ever been, illegal.

Great job. N.H.. I just wish my state could open their eyes and legalize.

originally posted by: Senators

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Yes, as our Founders wrote on Hemp paper and lit their homes with Hemp Oil.

Our Founders would not believe a plant they depended on would be made illegal.

If a Congressman back in our Founders time tried such a thing.

They would of broke out their Hemp rope and hung them.

Which is probably why the Founders put in a way for people to ensure that their will is reflected in the laws.

RIGHT! Thus this nullification AND states taking up their own rights on this. They are finally listening to the people.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Senators

No, they're very relevant, especially when you're saying a majority of Americans want their representatives to makes marijuana illegal. You couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, you're just making it up.

Your "what if" scenario is irrelevant. Fact is, America has more people in prison than anyone else in the world, including North Korea. That's amazing! Another fact, the majority incarcerated are there because of failed drug laws, namely marijuana and to continue, they're mostly black and Hispanic. To support marijuana being illegal is basically supporting racism.

Tell me, why are you so against this? Are you anti marijuana or just a lawyer who fully supports any and all laws, no matter how unjust?

I am against individuals deciding which laws they want to follow and which they do not.

If you can not see the inherent flaws within that system I do not know what to tell you. Legalize it if you like, I have no problem with that in fact pass a law that is retroactive and set everyone loose...I have no problem with that either but when you have a system that convict some and let other's go for the same crime, that is wrong.

Would you want to be charged with a crime you know you didn't commit and have your fate rest on whether or not the jury likes the way you look or would you rather have them be forced to consider the evidence and make their decision based on that? What if the prosecutor dredges up some old stuff from your past that is not relevant and uses that to persuade the jury that you should be convicted anyways because "you deserve it", regardless of the lack of evidence?

That is exactly what you are advocating for with nullification.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Senators

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Yes, as our Founders wrote on Hemp paper and lit their homes with Hemp Oil.

Our Founders would not believe a plant they depended on would be made illegal.

If a Congressman back in our Founders time tried such a thing.

They would of broke out their Hemp rope and hung them.

Which is probably why the Founders put in a way for people to ensure that their will is reflected in the laws.

RIGHT! Thus this nullification AND states taking up their own rights on this. They are finally listening to the people.

And I wonder if you would be so in favor of it if the jury nullified something you didn't agree with.

I highly suspect you wouldn't be.

a reply to: Senators

I can understand your position but fact is everyone suffers different fates in our court of law.

We're not under a majority law system.

The job of the government is to protect us and ensure our rights are being preserved.

Not this perverted system of government we are experiencing.

a reply to: Senators

Which was BS in the past. This is the digital age. That crap has filters now.

a reply to: Senators


The only problem with that outlook is it ignores history and the reasons so many involved in writing the US Constitution and Bill of Rights insisted on jury trials in the first pace. I think John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said it best in 1789

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Thomas Jefferson said, in the same year that

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.

The ability to utilize jury nullification is one of the last lines of defense against an out of control government. Unfortunately too few appreciate its power and far less are even aware of it.

a reply to: peter vlar

Another problem is how the judicial system keeps people from going to trial through intimidation.

The da will throw the book at you if you go to trial and lose.

Most cases are plea bargained if it didn't work that way they couldn't handle the case load so the public defender has to play along.

Once your in the system your screwed. Unless of course you have 100k to throw at a legal defense team the. They won't even try they will drop the charges.

a reply to: onequestion

Oh absolutely. The whole system is rigged to make sure the municipality makes some money no matter what and if you want to go to trial for even a minor felony, you're looking at thousands in attorneys fees on top of the huge retainer you've already paid your lawyer,which is itself the first big deterrent to going to trial without even getting into how they will often tack on multiple charges just to make sure that at trial at least something will stick. Its a giant scam and the path of least resistance is to take a plea deal and pay your "lesser" fine and walk away with a drastically reduced charge when in a lot of cases the person should never have been charged in the first place. I learned first hand how screwed the system is, when they know they don't have enough evidence to get the DA to convene a grand jury let alone enough to get an indictment, the police can themselves file a complaint against you because apparently understanding your rights and refusing to give a statement without an attorney present is enough to make you suspect in their mind.

a reply to: peter vlar

Yeah I get sick just reading you write about.

I went through the system that's how I know. Sounds like you did too.