News & Commentary from the liberterrain...
"Can Jury Nullification End The War On Drugs?" – The Atlantic
When prospective jurors in Missoula, Montana, refused to be seated in a marijuana possession case the New York Times reported, "Marijuana fans are calling it the Mutiny in Montana."
In a news release Friday Iloilo Jones of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) said that she "applauds the actions of the Missoula jurors, but not the government label of 'mutiny,'”
Jones elaborated, "Jury veto, or jury nullification, is the lawful vote of the People to prevent government employees from enforcing bad laws."
And that's sort of what happened in Missoula on December 13 when the prosecution asked the jury pool if they could prosecute a person for possessing as little as 1/16th of an ounce of marijuana.
The resounding answer, from one person after another, was "No!"
So resounding, in fact, that the court couldn't seat a jury.
Mathew Frank, who writes a blog for the Missoula Independent, has been tracking the reverberations nationwide. In Friday's blog he noted the NY Times and Atlantic articles above along with similar stories in such pillars of mainstream media as the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and Slate.
Although this wasn't technically an instance of jury nullification, since no jury had been empanelled, responses to the action have been predictable.
The prosecutor labeled it “A mutiny” while the defense attorney called it “Bizarre.”
But John Masterson, head of Montana NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) said, "I think that’s outstanding."
And The Libertarian Standard concluded that the people summoned for jury duty "recognize the sheer absurdity of prosecuting someone for possessing a tiny amount of a plant that has been cultivated and used by humans for thousands of years."
The defendant and recipient of the juror's "revolt," Touray Cornell, has previously been convicted of one real crime (theft) but more frequently for what libertarians call victimless lifestyle "crimes" such as dealing drugs and possessing a handgun as a convicted felon.
The following day he entered an "Alford plea" in which he didn’t admit guilt, and was sentenced to 20 years with 19 suspended.
Libertarians will likely agree with Masterson that marijuana prosecutions are "an unjust and a stupid use of government resources.”
"FIJA activists will continue to educate as many potential jurors as possible," vows FIJA's Iloilo Jones.
Don't miss a NATIONAL LIBERTARIAN NEWS EXAMINER article: Click the Subscribe button at the top of the articleand enter your email address or choose the RSS button. Either way you’ll be alerted to the latest piece when it's published. And don't forget to click Email to send this article to a friend.
Libertarians! What's happening in your area? Send me stories, photos, videos to publish in Libertarian News Examiner. greededitor@aol.com
Sponsor me. Buy an ad by clicking the Sponsor an Examiner button at the top of this article.
Comments
Thank you for the interesting article. Countries are decriminalizing: http://www.libertarianinternational.org/apps/blog/show/1612866-wins-drug...
There has to be a better way to stop gov's prosecution of immoral and unconstitutional laws. How about refusing to answer a question designed to stack the jury? Or lying? Do you owe the gov thugs the truth? Would you answer a robbers question? You can remain silent, as is your right, or lie. Both are morally acceptable. The choice to tell the prosequtor he needs to get someone else to aid him in a rights violation is leaving the victim open to harm when a lie would save the victim. If you were the victim wouldn't you want a sympithetic person to help? But by allowing their disqualification they offer no help as we have seen in this case where the victim was frightened into doing one year.
Excuse me for not understanding, but why would anyone plead guilty to possessing a small amount of marijuana (one-sixteenth ounce?) and get a 20 year sentence, even if 19 of them are "suspended" which means they could be imposed at some later date if he fails to comply with the sentence or conditions of parole!! Anyone who accepts that type of sentence must be smoking exhaust fumes, or there is more to this story than reported above!!
The only one who benefits from a "plea bargain" is the prosecution, never the prisoner. But they have the upper hand, and most people do not have the knowledge or money to fight them. They use every lie and dirty trick in the book.
It's a rigged game, no matter what you do.
Plea bargains are nothing more or less than court condoned perjury. The defendant is required to stand before the judge and swear under oath that he is pleading guilty because he is guilty and for no other reason. He is required to deny that he has cut a deal with the prosecution and that he is not entering a plea with the hope of mercy or a reduction of his sentence. Everybody in the courtroom knows he is lying under oath and that he has been encouraged to do so by the prosecutor as well as his (usually court appointed) defense attorney. The judge is also in on the fix. Like Mama Liberty said above, It's a rigged game, but it's the only game in town.
[W3]
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!