More like this please
Good:
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.
Would have been better, had this been an actual jury.
December 20th, 2010 at 11:45 am
This is why judges hair-lip the governor to keep the idea of jury nullification out of the courtroom.
December 20th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
I’ve never heard the phrase “hair-lip” a a verb.
What does that mean?
December 20th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
I don’t know if the full story necessarily supports that reaction.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
It’s lucky for him the ATF is so busy trying to screw over legal gun owners and dealers that they don’t have time to try felons in possession.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
I won’t convict for drug, gun, traffic offenses and have grown very skeptical of testimony from prosecution witnesses since I have learned how much LEOs lie on the stand. If there is a whiff of “revenue enhancement” about the law it’s not going to do well either.
December 20th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
A Constitutional jury is the highest political power in our Republic. The President,, the Judiciary and the Legislature (Congress) are all under the law whereas the Jury has the power to judge and nullify the law according to common (moral)law or the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The following quotes are those of which the Court system would keep us ignorant:
“It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” –John Adams
“The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1789-1795)
“The jury have an undoubted right to give a general verdict, which decides both law and fact.This distribution of power, by which the court and jury
mutually assist, and mutually check each other,” Hamilton continued, “seems to be the safest, and consequently the wisest arrangement, in respect to the trial of crimes. …” –Alexander Hamilton
“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”
–Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the Declaration of Independece
“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.”–Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902
“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.”–Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S.
Supreme Court
“The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments are bound by that instrument.”–John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176
December 20th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Y’ain’t from around here, are ya?!
December 20th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Several months ago I had jury duty and served on a cocaine trafficking case. In this state 13 jurors are selected and all 13 go through the entire trial until deliberation, at which point a name is literally drawn out of a hat and that name becomes the “alternate” (read: dismissed).
I was the name drawn out of the hat and I was hell-bent on nullification through a not-guilty verdict. I actually spoke with the defense attorney and the defendant’s mom a day after the verdict (guilty on all counts, natch… young black kid and a 100% white jury). I told ’em that I didn’t trust the LEO’s testimony or the state forensic lab’s argument.
Point is, all it takes is one person to radically alter the outcome of a defendant’s life and to send a strong message to the prosecution that this kind of BS is no longer going to be tolerated.
December 20th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I’ve heard of “hare-lip”, but that can in no way be verbed.
December 20th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
a) You’re correct, it’s “hare-lip” not “hair-lip”. That’s been rubbing my OCD the wrong way since I read it. Thank you!
b) All nouns can be verbed, all verbs can be nouned.
December 20th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
The problem with this around here is that after interviewing 40 people and picking 5 meatbots, the judge would then kick the remaining 35 in the pool back to the main queue and just get himself 40 more until he got enough meatbots to vote the way he wants.
If all those people have been doing jury duty for more than two hours, they’re getting less than minimum wage.
I guess they can’t haul in 3-400 people per day out in Missoula County, like the bastards can do around here.
December 20th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
I was on jury duty a couple years ago. Fortunately I was in the first round, so I was disqualified as too qualified very promptly.
December 20th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
This post reminds us all that the founders knew what they were doing protecting the right to trial by jury. Commenter Ron W reminds us of the “Jury Nullification Doctrine” which the government would like to keep secret.
December 21st, 2010 at 1:33 am
Last time I was on jury duty we let an armed robber go. We followed the word of the judge to the letter when he said the prosecution must prove he did it. We all knew he did it. The problem was the prosecution was sloppy in their evidence gathering and their star witness was an accessory. They did not even realize it. Ironically after the trial was over a woman I worked with. Mentioned she knew the kid who conducted the robbery. He was her neighbor and was a meth dealer as well as an armed robber. He had been bragging about it to everyone. Bottom line is when the police neglect to do their part then bad people will go free because I for one am unwilling to stoop to the level of the criminal by putting him away without evidence…
December 21st, 2010 at 7:17 am
I’m glad you set that straight for me. Do as you please, but you might as well use “nigger-rigged.” Using the term “hare lip” for those of us born with this horrible affliction is just the same, except we don’t get an activist group sticking up for us.
Then again, if you’d call a man a nigger to his face, then by all means carry on.
December 22nd, 2010 at 2:20 am
When I was called for jury duty they made it very clear that if we had a problem with the law we were not allowed to be on the jury.
After the trial the prosecutor and I had a nice long chat about jury nullification and other stuff (read my web page on it). She said if she had read the other stuff on my website before the trial I would have never gotten on the jury.