Marijuana.com

Randøm_

Good post, Fuzz, just allow mw to interject upon the quote of yours above. There is something called "jury nullification" which occurs when a jury refuses to convict one who can be blatantly guilty of breaking a law. I don't know exactly what the specifics entail, but it got Woody Harrelson found not guilty in Kentucky for cultivation.

There is hope on that front, too. I just thought this fact may make your morning a little brighter.

 

shadefoot

"Woody Harrelson found not guilty in Kentucky for cultivation."

Hey Randøm, do you have a link to a news item related to this? I know he's been a pretty cool dude for...ever? and I like to keep up on it. It'd be sweet if you could point me to an article.

tha_hashassin

It is now fairly well-documented that in decades past government efforts at excessive social control via criminal laws were hampered by juries refusing to convict people charged under unjust criminal laws. For example, during the prohibition era in the 1920's and early 1930's, prosecutors had a very hard time gaining convivtions for alcohol-related crimes because many jurors believed that alcohol prohibition was unjust and simply refused to convivt those accused of alcohol trafficking. They judged the law itself, and found it unjust. In fact, the low rate of conviction was clearly a factor leading to the repeal of Prohibition. Similar circumstances helped end the fugitive slave law, when juries refused to convivt people assisting runaway slaves.
The right of a jury to "nullify" a law is recognized in numerous court opinions. In fact, this power was itself purposefully created to give the citizenry the ability to combat tyranny by rejecting unconscionable laws similar to those currently outlawing marijuana. For example, the Fourth Circuit has written:
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the
undisputed power of the jury to aquit, even if its
verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and
contrary to the evidence.... If the jury feels that the
law under which the defendant is accused is unjust,
or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of
the accused, or for any reason which appeals to thier
logic or passion, the jury has the power to aquit, and
the courts must abide by that decision.
(United States v. Moylan [4th Cir. 1969] 417 F.2d 1002.)
Despite this concession, the Fourth Circuit has nevertheless concluded that the jury should not be told of its power to completely reject the law. To do so, said the court, "would be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness."
Therefore, if you are ever called as a juror in a marijuana case, you should know that you have the right to vote "not guilty" even if you believe the defendant commited the alleged marijuana crime. You can judge the law itself and refuse to lend your assistance to its implementation. As mentioned earlier, a single juror voting "not guilty" is all that is required for a hung jury. You cannot be punished for exercising this power and refusing to convict the defendant of a marijuana crime you believe is unjust. Remember, however, that although this right is well established, courts won't tell you about it. It is also considered misconduct for an attorney to bluntly inform the jurors of thier power. Therefore, if you are the defendant in a marijuana case, all you can do is hope that someone on the jury knows of this power and has the courage to exercise his or her power.

Greenman

90 million people have used marijuana, roughly 1/3rd of the population. This means that a jury of 12, by law of averages, will have 4 pot smokers or former pot smokers on it. Even if there was careful screening of the prospective jurors, our numbers are suffecient to almost guarentee one person will be on your jury that has had some experience with marijuana.

It is every American marijuana users civic duty to aquit on marijuana offences, reguardless of the evidence, as well as certian aggravating circumstances that are normally tacked on to the charge lists to help the DA win a case on some level. The level of aggravating circumstances you are willing to over look is pretty much a case by case basis, and you should weigh them carefully. The object is to set the law right, not to skew it in the other direction.

For more information on the powers of a Jury, please check out the The Fully Informed Jury Association. They have the powers described in detail, as well as the court cases which establish those powers.

Jury nullification was validated in one of the first cases that came across the courts docket after the Supreme Courts inception, back at the begining of the country.

Peace.

__________________
Some will never open their eyes. Some will have them opened for them. Some will see light, some won't be able to stand the brightness and will turn away. -Robin Prosser's Diary Day 23 -- Please read our Posting Guidelines for questions on our policies.

Fuzz E L0g1c

If you guys are right than why are so many people going to jail for marijuana?

Why be concerned about marijuana laws at all, if your nice, compassionate jury will refuse to convict you?

I guess we already won, so we can stop this fighting and go get high!! The Supreme Court? What can they do? It doesnt' matter at all!!

Yeah whatever....





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The Revolution wants to change the world, he movest the world tword his vision. The rebel is careful to preserve the injustices from which he suffers so that he can go on rebelling.

 

Randøm_

Shadefoot, I actually heard it on the news, so you're making me do some work . I'll list a couple links for ya

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread1419.shtml

(just an unrelated MJ and Harrelson v court link)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n536/a09.html

Lists a case regarding MJ and jury nullification in the UK)
http://216.9.192.67/marijuananews/cowan/latest_news.htm

For some reason, this news isn't being highly publicized, apparently. Within these links are some info on the case, but not too much detail on the dynamics of "jury nullification" in that case in particular. In this one instance, the national news on television actually gave more info than that of which I have yet to find. When I find a better link, I promise I'll PrivateMessage it to ya.

One thing I did learn is that Jury Nullification is actually a right .

PS ...love your comments in every thread I've read thus far.

Randøm_

Fuzz, the one main ingredient necessary to win this war is ... the ability to win, which is "strength by numbers".
It is not right to have this inhumane law, that is why I am fighting. Winning doesn't happen over night, it's a process. After decades of battle, we are closer than ever to winning, but we have not yet won.

I appreciate your dissatisfaction with how things are, for I share that with you. These things mentioned are not reasons to quit fighting ... they are reasons and hope, itself, to keep fighting.

Greenman

There are two main reasons why you don't have juries aquitting people of pot charges left and right.

#1> They are not aware that Jury Nullification exists, or its range of power, or if they have the right to use it when they are sitting in the juror room. If you will recall, it has been mentioned several times that Juries are not informed of this specific right when given directions for their deliberations. So if someone doesn't know about it before they go in, they are not going to find out from the courts or the attorneys.

#2> People are not aware or fully understanding of the science behind marijuana. A lot of pot smokers still believe that the party line of rhetoric is true, and that they are criminals for smoking. Knowledge is power, and in marijuana cases these are two huge chunks of knowledge that are missing from most juries. Even those with marijuana users on them.

What we are attempting to do with marijuana.com, as well as many other sites on the internet and other organizations is get this information out to the masses. That way we can not only start winning at the ballot box, but in the jury room as well. And those two places will illustrate quite clearly to the politicians in charge the will and intent of the people.

Try not to get dishearted at the size of the beast, to use an example from the bible of David killing the giant Goliath with a small stone. The issue may be huge, but that just means that it is slow, clumsy, and easy to hit. We have the truth on our side, and the endless patience to sit back and keep saying it and they have to keep lying to keep it going until finally the war machine cannot handle anymore, and the whole thing collapses. Attrittion, and it is only one way to victory.

Peace.

Maggie

Hey guys thanks for all the great info. I have a question about jury nullification..... is it true that defense attorneys are *not allowed* to inform a jury that they have this right??
That seems outrageous. Doesn't a jury have a right to know its rights?

Maggie

shadefoot

Yes, Maggie, the defense cannot inform the jury of this. The reasoning behind this is that jury nullification is considered a "right" of the jury, like you have the "right" to refuse consent to a car search. The citizens of this country are expected to know their rights, I think this is a good safty feature actually. It should be incumbent upon us to know our rights and not have to have them told to us. In my opinion anyway. It requires citizens of a democracy to participate or lose out, which is sort of the idea