Would-Be Jurors Stage 'Mutiny' in Marijuana Case

Would-Be Jurors Stage

www.law.com

Potential jurors staged a "mutiny" during a felony drug case, a Missoula County prosecutor says, and authorities worry the result will be viewed as a game-changer when it comes to future attempts at prosecuting drug cases in Montana.

Nearly all 27 Missoula County residents during the jury selection process on Thursday told District Court Judge Dusty Deschamps there was no way they would convict anybody of having a couple of buds of marijuana.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I thought this was awesome. It's just another way to fight back against laws that are tyrannical in one form or another. If you don't like a law then do not convict someone being tried for it. Eventually they will have to change it. Jury's are one power we the people will always have. I would love to have the chance to do this on a jury or even as a defendant. First thing that comes to mind is red light cameras. Ask for a jury trial and see f your peers will convict you. These things don't need to be in the hands of judges and can be with the people. Hats off to these people for standing up against a bad law.

www.law.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I just hope they don't take away our right to be tried by a jury of our peers because we don't follow their rules. I mean if they could overturn laws simply by refusing to commit people for something unjust, would prohibition lasted so long? Otherwise I think this is a great example of the mondernization of thinking, the scare tactics surrounding pot are starting to be questioned more often. S&F because I'm a proponet of anyone screwing the government after we have been screwed so often.

Pretty cool to see the reality of how unbelievably evil our marijuana laws in this country have reached a conservative place like Montana. And it's just as depressing to see despite our population's enlightenment the government will still do anything it can to steal your rights and subvert the will of the people. This judge should be disbarred and beaten.

It's down right frightening that the judge dismissed the jury and still worked with the defense to get this guy jailtime.

You gotta love this quote from the evil defense attorney

In the plea memorandum filed by Elison, he noted that public opinion "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."

So because a group of people don't want to destroy the life of an individual for possessing a non-harmful plant, they're a biased jury.

[snip]

there is a law allowing juries to refuse to convict under laws they deem unjust, but i cant remember the name of it. This is a great way to resist the ptb

Good for them for standing up for what they believed in.
The guy is serving time for his theft....but for small amounts
of bud....feel the rules and regulations are way too stringent.

Awesome!!! to actually see people united on this issue. The criminalization of cannabis was one of the most harmful moves our goverment has made against us. I believe it has been extremely detrimental to all aspects of our society.

reply to post by HarryJoy


It is one of their most powerful tools.
They take your fingerprints, DNA, and freedom.
From then on, you are a Felon. They take away your rights.
Win/win, for them... felons can't buy guns.

The mistake this guy did make, and why he is serving time now on this charge, is that he agreed to a plea deal after no jury could be formed. His sentence on this charge was just added to his theft charges.

Had he demanded a jury trail, eventually the court would have had to dismiss the charges when no jury could be found that would be willing to convict.

reply to post by lastrebel


Good call....

Jury nullification occurs when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence.[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury contrary to the letter of the law—that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concern what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction requiring the jury to apply the law to the defendant in light of the facts in the permissible evidence. A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

Jury nullification

And not surprisingly...

Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries. Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power.

Originally posted by lastrebel
there is a law allowing juries to refuse to convict under laws they deem unjust, but i cant remember the name of it. This is a great way to resist the ptb

A judge will not disclose this to a jury. In Colorado an attorney or defendant will find great displeasure with the court if the words Jury Nullification are uttered while in session.

However the jury is the ultimate authority ! Unfortunately most try to avoid jury duty feeling they are simply pawns in a game of words and convict based on the judges admonishment that they must base their verdict based on the law. NONSENSE ! The brochures are free downloads, hand them out to everyone you know or send the link in all your online correspondence. Cheers
fija.org...

I might add that if one actually intends to utilize this power the prosecution will attempt to weed you out through Voir Dire. Attorneys are critical thinkers. Down load
" Surviving Voir Dire - How to get on the Jury " Especially important are the 'Appropriate Answers' to some rather innocently phrased questions.
fija.org...

Great find!
I think you mahave unearthed a weapon that the people had forgotten or didnt know they had.
This is information that must get out!
The MSM will never let the people in on this simple but effective check on the insanity that the goverment keeps throwing at us?
This HAS to get WIDESPREAD!
s&f and hallelujah! hannah!
We do have the final say....this is too rich! yahoo!

Isn't the point of having a jury sort of a last defense against unjust laws?
I mean, "A jury of your peers" couldn't/ shouldn't be able to convict on something unless they believe it to be criminal, right.

I think the problem in court cases is when the judge won't allow a jury to consider lesser charges, or tells them they must convict if they believe a defendant committed certain acts.

Originally posted by MrWendal
.

Fact #3. Dealers do not push drugs, they offer drugs. Drugs push themselves. Ever get asked by a dealer if you want to buy and say no? I have. Know what happened after I said no? Nothing, they went away. Say no to anything from a Corporation and it's a one hour long discussion.

that's true, the bank called me and tried to sell me their insurance package and upgrade my account for a small fee. i must of said i'm not interested 10x, after what seemed 45 mins i finally just hung up.

that why everytime i get asked for my phone no. by any corporation i just give them my standard fake no. so i don't get confused incase i want to access my account by phone and they ask me for it.

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
reply to post by lastrebel

 

Good call....

Jury nullification occurs when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence.[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury contrary to the letter of the law—that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concern what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction requiring the jury to apply the law to the defendant in light of the facts in the permissible evidence. A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

Jury nullification

And not surprisingly...

Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries. Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power.

when i tell people this,, they're shocked to here this can be done


also,,,,, isn't it illegal for a defendant or lawsyer to inform the jury of this option,,,, i'm pretty sure it is

and in 3 strike cases,,, i bet they may exercise this option,,,,, like a guy who committed 2 robberies, thefts at 18.,,,,, but is now 40 and homeless and steals socks or a twinkie and now faces 20- years or life in prison

reply to post by the cynic jester


Well actually they are playing by 'their rules'. It's called jury nullification. for these folks.

[Edit to add] I see others already mentioned that. Next time I should read the thread before I jump to reply

Originally posted by shortywarn

Jury nullification

when i tell people this,, they're shocked to here this can be done
also,,,,, isn't it illegal for a defendant or lawsyer to inform the jury of this option,,,, i'm pretty sure it is

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney - I just play one on tv - ha.
Seriously though, my understanding is that legality is based on rulings in prior court cases and precedent that has been set. Yes, you appear to be correct based on precedent, however, the jury's power remains.

In recent years, judges seem to be less likely to favor jury nullification. While unable to take away the power of nullification, they have done much to prevent its use.

examples:

Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[35] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[36] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."[37] In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[38] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are considered by bar associations to be ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.

What I get from all this, as the above posters have said, is that it is up to the people to know their own power via jury nullification. Your peers would seem to be your last line of defense - only, as you said, nobody can tell you that.

This whole concept makes me question the present jury selection process. Also, juries are often selected from registered voter pools, not citizen pools, in various states (if I remember correctly). Are you registered? Are your peers registered?

I'm glad that this issue raised this powerful concept. Our corporate prison system would probably prefer that paying (with your tax dollars) guests not know about this option and that jury members do what they are told instead of standing in their own power against laws they consider wildly unjust. Check out the link. It is full of info on various countries and the history of jury nullification in action on issues from slavery to prohibition.

Just say null. Powerful idea.

I personally came to know about jury nullification because there is activist group who try to inform the people. They hand out jury nullification pamphlets outside courthouses. They got assaulted and arrested for that and for filming their own actions. On public areas.