Jury mutiny

Post Reply New Topic

I just thought this was great:




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.

District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll as to who might agree. Of the 27 potential jurors before him, maybe five raised their hands. A couple of others had already been excused because of their philosophical objections.
“I thought, ‘Geez, I don’t know if we can seat a jury,’ ” said Deschamps, who called a recess.
And he didn’t.

During the recess, Paul and defense attorney Martin Elison worked out a plea agreement. That was on Thursday.
On Friday, Cornell entered an Alford plea, in which he didn’t admit guilt. He briefly held his infant daughter in his manacled hands, and walked smiling out of the courtroom.

“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,” according to the plea memorandum filed by his attorney.

“A mutiny,” said Paul.

“Bizarre,” the defense attorney called it.

In his nearly 30 years as a prosecutor and judge, Deschamps said he’s never seen anything like it.
*****
“I think that’s outstanding,” John Masterson, who heads Montana NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), said when told of the incident. “The American populace over the last 10 years or so has begun to believe in a majority that assigning criminal penalties for the personal possession of marijuana is an unjust and a stupid use of government resources.”
Masterson is hardly an unbiased source.

On the other hand, prosecutor, defense attorney and judge all took note that some of the potential jurors expressed that same opinion.

“I think it’s going to become increasingly difficult to seat a jury in marijuana cases, at least the ones involving a small amount,” Deschamps said.

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.

And all three noticed the age of the members of the jury pool who objected. A couple looked to be in their 20s. A couple in their 40s. But one of the most vocal was in her 60s.

“It’s kind of a reflection of society as a whole on the issue,” said Deschamps.
Which begs a question, he said.

Given the fact that marijuana use became widespread in the 1960s, most of those early users are now in late middle age and fast approaching elderly.

Is it fair, Deschamps wondered, in such cases to insist upon impaneling a jury of “hardliners” who object to all drug use, including marijuana?

“I think that poses a real challenge in proceeding,” he said. “Are we really seating a jury of their peers if we just leave people on who are militant on the subject?”

Although the potential jurors in the Cornell case quickly focused on the small amount of marijuana involved, the original allegations were more serious – that Cornell was dealing; hence, a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.

Because the case never went to trial, members of the jury pool didn’t know that Cornell’s neighbors had complained to police that he was dealing from his South 10th Street West four-plex, according to an affidavit in the case. After one neighbor reported witnessing an alleged transaction between Cornell and two people in a vehicle, marijuana was found in the vehicle in question.
The driver and passenger said they’d bought it from Cornell, the affidavit said. A subsequent search of his home turned up some burnt marijuana cigarettes, a pipe and some residue, as well as a shoulder holster for a handgun and 9mm ammunition. As a convicted felon, Cornell was prohibited from having firearms, the affidavit noted.

Cornell admitted distributing small amounts of marijuana and “referred to himself as a person who connected other dealers with customers,” it said. “He claimed his payment for arranging deals was usually a small amount of marijuana for himself.”

Potential jurors also couldn’t know about Cornell’s criminal history, which included eight felonies, most of them in and around Chicago several years ago. According to papers filed in connection with the plea agreement, Cornell said he moved to Missoula to “escape the criminal lifestyle he was leading,” but he’s had a number of brushes with the law here.

Those include misdemeanor convictions for driving while under the influence and driving with a suspended license, and a felony conviction in August of conspiracy to commit theft, involving an alleged plot last year to stage a theft at a business where a friend worked, the papers said. He was out on bail in that case when the drug charges were filed.

In sentencing him Friday, Deschamps referred to him as “an eight-time loser” and said, “I’m not convinced in any way that you don’t present an ongoing threat to the community.”

Deschamps also pronounced himself “appalled” at Cornell’s personal life, saying: “You’ve got no education, you’ve got no skills. Your life’s work seems to be going out and impregnating women and not supporting your children.”

The mother of one of those children, a 3-month-old named Joy who slept through Friday’s sentencing, was in the courtroom for Friday’s sentencing. Cornell sought and received permission to hug his daughter before heading back to jail.

Deschamps sentenced Cornell to 20 years, with 19 suspended, under Department of Corrections supervision, to run concurrently with his sentence in the theft case. He’ll get credit for the 200 days he’s already served. The judge also ordered Cornell to get a GED degree upon his release.

“Instead of being a lazy bum, you need to get an education so you can get a decent law-abiding job and start supporting your family,” he said.

Normally, Paul said after the sentencing, a case involving such a small amount of marijuana wouldn’t have gone this far through the court system except for the felony charge involved.

But the small detail in this case may end up being a big game-changer in future cases.

The reaction of potential jurors in this case, Paul said, “is going to be something we’re going to have to consider.”



http://missoulian.com/news/local/articl ... 03286.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So just remember...take that jury duty. You never know..maybe you'll get to help take a stand against BS LAWS. But you gotta take that chance and hope to get the opportunity.

The Judge could declare a mistrial and dismiss the jury.

ruveyn

It was the jury pool, not simply the selected jury.

Ah. Then these people in the pool were running a real risk of being held in contempt of court. A judge can do that even without a trial going on.

ruveyn

Just because you have the power to do something immediate doesn't mean that you can or will. Especially when that act would ultimately prove foolish.

As far as I'm aware, jury nullification is still legal in this country...

I'm of course positively thrilled, it's about time that people started recognizing that just because someone made a law doesn't mean they were right to do so. Hopefully this sort of thing becomes more common as people realize the full extent of invasiveness of some of our laws.

Win.

I'm pretty sure it is, but I don't think it has ever been a common practice. You need a pretty severe disconnect between government policy and public opinion before there is even the slightest chance of jury nullification occurring.

// I don't even smoke pot, and I think these laws are pointless and stupid.

Have you drank or anything?

Nope.

Sensible judge though.

No. The judge can not do that.

It is called JURY NULLIFICATION. It is the inherent right of the jury to REFUSE to convict a person, even if they have met all the elements of a crime enumerated against them. It is the check society has over government creating and enforcing any law it sees fit to impose. If the jury feels the law is wrong or being imposed unjustly, they can refuse to convict. There are no appeal rights for the state in the event of an acquittal...no matter the reason.

A judge CAN remove a juror from the panel if it can be shown/alleged that the juror is biased or has had inappropriate contact with parties outside the courtroom regarding the integrity of the jury itself, but a judge can not act in the case of a jury choosing to not convict a defendant.

It's bad enough that judges get away with denying jury instruction informing juries of their right to jury nullification and that the voir dire process lets the state slant the scales by eliminating people from a jury who are unwilling to convict someone for certain crimes. Stack the jury with "hang them high" citizens and you can ensure you get an outcome the state will like.

I did not know the term "JURY NULLIFICATION", but I had already heard about judges even deceiving jurors into believing all instructions (including ad-hoc ones) from judges could be enforced through legal punishment for non-compliance. As I understand things, juries have far more authority and power in the courtroom than "the system" wants any of us to know and comprehend.

Mentioned in the article is the query whether it is fair that a jury of "peers" of a drug-user should contain hardliners who are opposed to drug-use. Fair point. But a murderer doesn't get a jury made of murderers, and a rapist doesn't get to have a bunch of rapists. "Peer" is something of an inaccurate term for the average jury composition.

It is legal is in the sense there is nothing a judge can do to stop it. However if a juror outright declares he is not making his decision on the basis of evidence admitted in court he can be dismissed from the jury.

ruveyn

Admitting I know very little about all of this:

What if a juror/jury refuses to ignore certain testimony as ordered by a judge or if a juror/jury insists upon hearing or considering certain evidence or having it allowed or even being allowed to ask questions?

Those are the kinds of things I have heard jurors/juries can do in spite of typically being told otherwise.

Generally speaking, things leading to a prosecution are good for the judges and prosecutors (who are mostly elected). It speaks to their toughness on crime and puts forward a false sense of safety to the fools who don't bother to considering prosecutorial misconduct.