Missoula (Montana) District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ‘mutiny’

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.

Source Story from Billings Gazette

After several dismissals from the pool already because of "philosophical objections" to arresting someone for 1/16 of an ounce of marijuana, the judge then took a poll of the remaining 27 jurors, and asked them who else agreed with the objections. 5 more potential jurors raised their hands and admitted that they were also.

The judge called a recess, and the State and defense worked out a plea deal. The felony the defendant was also charged with was related to him providing two people with some pot who were in a car that was stopped by police.

The defendant had multiple prior convictions, including felonies from years past. Some from other states. He was eventually sentenced to 20 years in prison with 19 suspended as per the plea deal worked out ofter the recess was called. The judge told the defendant he was a "lazy bum" and ordered him to get a GED after being released.
......................................
None of that is really relevant though to the real issue here. The judge after calling the recess noted that if all of the members of the jury pool who objected to the prosecution, were dismissed by the state, then it potentially left only drug "hardliners" on the panel. That wouldn't be fair to the defense.

The defense attorney stated in the plea agreement stated as noted in the Gazette that "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...”

The prosecution called it a mutiny by jurors. The defense called it bizarre. The judge said he had never seen anything like it in 30 years.

The attorneys and the judge all noted Missoula County’s approval in 2006 of Initiative 2, which required law enforcement to treat marijuana crimes as their lowest priority – and also of the 2004 approval of a statewide medical marijuana ballot initiative.

Now, in case you didn't read the full article and may be wondering if the potential jurors who were part of the objection were young stoners, they weren't. At least 2 looked to be in their 20's according to the article. A couple of them in their 40's. And one of the most vocal about the issue was a woman in her 60's.

This is the way it seems that a lot of this part of the country is starting to feel. Remember, this wasn't about someone who had multiple kilo's of marijuana. Even if he was distributing it, the potential jury members focused on the fact that one of the charges was related to only a couple buds of pot. Less than 1/16th of an ounce. They said the county/state shouldn't be concerned with that small an amount. It's a waste of time, money and resources.

Ignore the fact this was a multiple convicted felon involved in the case here. I brought all of this up to discuss whether the local, state of federal governments should spent the money and resources they have to go after simple possessions of marijuana.

This isn't about drug use. And please don't make this thread about your use of drugs.This is about governmental intrusion into our lives over small amounts of "illegal" substances, and the growing public outcry, at least in multiple certain areas of the country against it. I agree with them. I don't smoke pot, and haven't for many years. But if someone has some for their personal use, small amounts, why concern yourselves with it?

I know this topic has been discussed before on here, but here is a new legal case involving this. Not the judge, the defense or the state. But a juries refusal to sit on the case. Please keep this civil as we discuss this!!

Just a sign of a decadent society. People are more concerned about getting high than the literacy level of youth. America has this screwed up apathetic attitude about its problems. So the answer to the drug problem is make it legal and the answer for racism is affirmative action where people are choosen based on race instead of prohibited by it.
I just dont get it, the guy broke the law and got caught.