The jury box is just about the only place where
average citizens can veto bad laws.
In Washington, D.C., a jury ignored a military veteran's obvious violation of the city's draconian gun laws, setting him free with only a slap on the wrist. In LaSalle County, Illinois, a medical marijuana user found with 25 pounds of the plant didn't even get the slap; jurors chatted with him after finding him not guilty. While we can't know for sure, in both cases jury nullification was likely at work as regular people serving an important role in courtrooms exercised their power to quash laws they found repugnant.
Corporal Melroy H. Cort, who lost his knees to an improvised bomb in Ramadi, Iraq, was en route to Walter Reed Hospital from his home in Columbus, Ohio, when his car got a flat. He and his wife, Samantha, pulled over for repairs, at which time Cort, who has a concealed carry permit at home, retrieved his 9mm pistol from his glove compartment and put it in his pocket.
Cort's gun was spotted by somebody who called police, and Cort rapidly gained an education in D.C.'s notoriously strict firearms laws. He was charged with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of ammunition. He spent the night behind bars for having the nerve to possess a weapon in a city that, while it has improved since its nadir in the 1990s, still has about triple the national average rate of violent crime.
Despite its crime rate, D.C. has done its best to deny residents the right to legally defend themselves. This is the city that was taken to court for its restrictions -- and lost, resulting in the landmark case of D.C. v. Heller, which reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. Depite that loss, city laws remain extremely restrictive, and Cort had clearly run afoul of local law.
But an amazing thing happened in court. According to the Washington Post:
After being deadlocked twice, a D.C. Superior Court jury yesterday acquitted a Marine amputee on felony charges of gun possession stemming from an arrest while he was on the way to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. ...
Although acquitting him of the gun charges, the jury found Cort guilty of possessing ammunition, a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to time already spent in the D.C. jail.
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the jury ultimately saw no benefit in applying the city's tight gun laws to a handicapped man who was just passing through. Maybe they even questioned the overall propriety of the laws. In the end, they rather clearly ignored the law to set Cort free with just a nominal slap on the wrist -- which he plans to appeal.
And that brings us to the case of Loren J. Swift. Swift was arrested during a peaceful encounter at his home with a sizeable quantity of marijuana and plants -- reportedly 25 pounds and 50 pounds, respectively. He had been convicted once before for marijuana possession. A Navy veteran, Swift says he smokes marijuana to relieve pain and alleviate post-traumatic stress disorder, but Illinois does not yet have a medical marijuana law.
Twenty-five pounds of grass, plus plants, in a state where marijuana is strictly illegal. That doesn't sound good for Swift. Except ...
On Wednesday in La Salle County Circuit Court, several jurors shook hands with an emotional Loren J. Swift after finding him not guilty of a marijuana charge that would have sent him to prison. ...
In the courthouse lobby, after the verdict, two male jurors talked and laughed with Swift and his attorney, Randy Gordon; one of the jurors patted Swift on his back. However, one of these jurors refused to admit he was a juror when The Times approached him for comment about the verdict; the other juror didn't deny he was indeed a juror, but nevertheless refused to talk.
Not surprisingly, observers at Swift's trial openly speculated about jury nullification. Once again, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that jurors sympathized more with the defendant than with the law, so decided to ignore what the statute books say.
In doing so, in both cases, justice prevailed. So did liberty.
We don't know what was going through the jurors' heads in the Cort and Swift trials, or whether any jurors were even familiar with jury nullification. But it's not that difficult a concept to invent from scratch, if necessary.
Historically, as President John Adams put it, it has been the juror's "duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Unfortunately, you won't come across that quote from Adams in many modern courtrooms. Government officials don't like being second-guessed by the hoi polloi, so the tradition of independent juries has been allowed to wither from neglect. Few jurors ever learn about the traditional power of juries.
But you don't need to know history to have an inkling that the rights of the individual sometimes violate the dictates of the law -- and then decide to come down in favor of individual rights. And individual rights are an endangered species in a nation increasingly hemmed in by laws and regulations that seem to render ever more of our daily activities either mandatory or forbidden. They need as much protection as they can get.
To preserve what's left of our liberty, jury nullification is a good and powerful tool for checking government power. But since it is frequently discouraged by judges and prosecutors jealous of their prerogatives, it's generally exercised on the sly -- often by jurors unaware that they're doing exactly what was originally intended. For that reason, we'll likely never know exactly when nullification is being exercised.
But we can celebrate it when we see it.
You might also enjoy these:
Civil Liberties Examiner is now on Facebook!
Or follow the latest civil liberties news on Twitter: Libertywriter
Contact J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
Comments
The sad fact is, if he were black, he would have been sent to prison. Decriminalize marijuana!!
I really recommend liberty activists check out the link to the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA.org) linked in the article above. There is TONS of great info about being on a Jury and Grand Jury.
RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE. Always with the race. The deck has a heck of a lot of cards besides that one.
I think "military worship" played a part in this. I think the entire "I support the troops" and patriotism thing has snowballed a bit into the same kind of thing the "left" has for hollyweird types.
That's not to say I don't agree with the verdict, just that had it been some day to day joe working the factory he likely wouldn't have fared as well.
As for the WHEELCHAIR bound man, an American citizen, arrested for carrying a firearm...how many possible ways can the anti-rights forces seek to enrage people with a double digit IQ?
Limited mobility= can't flee
Secured weapon on person=can't get into criminal hands.
Ammunition=part of gun, like gas= part of car, or in the case of these anti freedom crusaders government=part of salvation (I only have to point at this story to show how erroneous that IS)
Jury Nullification in Cannabis cases will become normal.
While it is true that it is highly unlikely, and probably impossible that a judge will allow an attorney to raise the issue of jury nullification.
There is another way...the defendant-and his allies-can do an end run around the kangaroo court via the First Amendment.
I had plans to do exactly that in my cannabis case in 2002. I published and printed 10,000 copies of an informative booklet with the intent of mass-mailing them to every household in my county, in order to attempt to educate potential jurors.
Because I witnessed enough corruption on the part of the court, the police and the prosecutor, to demonstrate that a fair trial was just a fantasy, as well as other critical considerations, I abandoned the plan and ended up doing a plea-bargain in order to avoid the possibility of prison for myself and a loved one. In return for my guilty plea to a reduced felony, and a six-figure check presented to the Sheriff's Office, I was able to "purchase" the dismissal of charges against my loved one (baseless charges that acted as an incentive {can you spell t o r t u r e?} for me to make a deal with greedy corrupt authorities) as well as a suspended jail sentence and two years probation for me. The whole sordid story could easily be book length...
It is also possible to utilize print/radio/television advertising to educate the jury pool, as well as just offering printed information to people as you circle the courthouse on the sidewalk. Exercise that First Amendment as much and as well as you can afford to.
Here is a bit of information from my booklet:
Today judges in all criminal cases, federal and state, tell the jurors at the end of the case before they leave the courtroom to vote, "you are here to judge the facts, you must obey the law as I give it to you."
That is a lie.
Neither constitutional nor legislative enactment so states. All "jury instructions" in criminal cases are merely helpful suggestions. See United States v. Norton, 846 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1988).
Judges are always careful to conceal this fact from juries. Most jurors think this is the "law," though this was never the intent of those who wrote the Constitution nor has it ever been a statute (law) or legislative enactment of any kind, at least at the federal level.
-----
Now, it should be common sense that people need warned that they must conceal from the court that they are aware of this sort of information, and if questioned about it by the court, they must even lie about it, in order to serve on the jury. Some may object to such lying, but remember, judges, prosecutors, and police regularly lie-and cheat-in order to obtain convictions, especially in cannabis cases.
They (the authorities) sure don't "play" according to the rules, and we are assured of only losing if we aren't willing to bend-or even break-rules when it is appropriate to do so.
And it is appropriate to do so. I shall illustrate with an example from history:
In slave times it was a crime to assist runaway slaves (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850). Those who did so and were apprehended and tried, often found that jurors with a conscience wouldn't convict, despite the facts and/or the law...
Back then, conscience dictated that it was clearly wrong for people to "own" other people as property; just as wrong is the modern notion that the government "owns" our bodies and our lives through the criminalization of peaceful personal behaviors that are properly beyond the scope of governmental intrusion.
I just looked at this story from digg.com; I live in Lasalle county Illinois, and this is the first i've heard of the weed case. I'm glad he didn't have to go to jail for FOREVER over 25+50 pounds of grass. I Think everyone is ready for the truth about marijuana
Guns & Cannabis
It appears that many of us are approaching the point of "having had enough", regarding our varied Liberties.
The real problem might be toleration, or more accurately, the lack of it. We wish our preferred freedoms to be respected, while applauding governmental crackdowns upon those freedoms we dislike or are indifferent to. Such attitudes only make the ongoing gradual enslavement of us all inevitable.
The best example of this may be cannabis and firearms...
Many in both camps are enthusiastic to hear of busts and crackdowns on the group they oppose, unaware that trampling either freedom works to suppress each of them...
I find it curious-and disappointing-that many gun enthusiasts are not at all bashful to exclaim their love of Liberty, then turn and approve and even encourage cannabis prohibition, often while hypocritically swilling a Budweiser; that many of those in the cannabis culture appear to support the notion that firearms don't belong in private hands, that only the government should possess guns-THIS thoroughly corrupt government???...how absurd.
Notice that government often treats a mixture of the two as a greater criminal offense...carrying increased penalties.
Notice that once due process procedures are shredded in regard to cannabis or firearms cases, the same corrupt practice is often soon accepted in regard to the other category of cases too. The erosion of probable cause standards as well as the relaxation of the exclusionary rule are good examples.
We ALL need to recognize our individual right-as adults-to be left alone, to live our lives as we choose, so long as we don't intrude upon the equal rights of others; otherwise we might as well become comfortable with totalitarianism.
The rulers have always relied upon divisions among the ruled in order to impose a general oppression; sadly, modern Americans-through their ignorance-make it very easy to do so...
Also, BIG UPS to LaSalle county getting this honorable mention in "Civil Liberties Examiner". Respect
Also, BIG UPS to LaSalle county getting this honorable mention in "Civil Liberties Examiner". Respect
Prosecutors typically throw wild speculative and circumstantial cases at unsuspecting juries. This is how judges and attorneys collude to commit fraud upon the Jury. A Juror has to know that the prosecutor hasn't proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt or that the law is just flat ridiculous, and vote NOT GUILTY no matter what.
When you study juries in school history books, who are the two names that are mentioned most often? William Penn and John Peter Zenger. What did they do that was so laudable? They told the government WHERE TO STICK their unjust laws! Yes, these people are considered heroes because they took a defendant who was clearly "guilty" under the laws or the land at the time, and freed him. That's jury nullification! Isn't it obvious that when you have a government that says, "don't do that any more," you are dealing with an oppressive tyranny and not a government of/for/by the people? The government is wrong. If the law is unfair, YOU NULLIFY IT. It is your right and privilege as sovereign citizens, and it is your right and privilege as a juror.
I don't get what you are criticizing. The reason for having ordinary people on a jury is so they "find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience." as you quote John Adams. The juror could see the med marijuana grower was using it for medicine and agreed with him. Are we supposed to leave all our feelings and opinions at home? That's the reason for having a jury, to get ordinary Joe's making decisions, not people with agenda and preconceived notions.
To understand medical marijuana issues, go to LA City Buzz Examiner, where we cover the growing industry in California with Joy.
maybe the people are just sick and tired of the forthcoming police state.
There are parts of the country tht are very scary because they arnt utilizing the police we do have... They spend more time writing tickets for petty crimes using the reverse robinhood antics to pay off a government that has been failing us for the better part of 3 decades. People are sick and tired of being sick and tired. We followed are leaders into this mess under the understanding that it was in our best interest and look where they have taken us.
Very nice site!
Very nice site!
McKenzie is correct that if this guy were black he probably would have been sent to prison. I pray (& more importantly work to achieve) that more people become aware of this type of thing and start to take back our freedom. I am so afraid of the future my children will face. God help us all. (A mass extinction by natural disaster might even be a good thing at this point)
legalize!!!
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!