A man with a string of convictions and a reputation as a drug dealer was going on trial in Montana for distributing a small amount of marijuana found in his home—if only the court could find jurors willing to send someone to jail for selling a few marijuana buds.The problem began during jury selection this month in Missoula, when a potential juror said she would have a “real problem” convicting someone for selling such a small amount. But she would follow the law if she had to, she said.
A woman behind her was adamant. “I can’t do it,” she said, prompting Judge Robert L. Deschamps III to excuse her. Another juror raised a hand, the judge recalled, “and said, ‘I was convicted of marijuana possession a few years ago, and it ruined my life.’ “ Excused.
“Then one of the people in the jury box said, ‘Tell me, how much marijuana are we talking about? ... If it was a pound or a truckload or something like that, OK, but I’m not going to convict someone of a sale with two or three buds,’ “ the judge said. “And at that point, four or five additional jurors spontaneously raised their hands and said, ‘Me, too.’ “
By that time, Deschamps knew he had a jury problem.
This good....not because I am a pot smoker, found out in high school it just made me sleepy not high, but because it is a total waste all around. No I am NOT going to argue about the effects of pot or anything like that, it's a freedom issue for me.
“We’ve got a lot of citizens obviously that are not willing to hold people accountable for sales in small amounts, or at least have some deep misgivings about it. And I think if I excuse a quarter or a third of a jury panel just to get people who are willing to convict, is that really a fair representation of the community? I mean, people are supposed to be tried by a jury of their peers.”
What a taxeater that recognises that it might be cheating or defying the spirit of the system to keep dismissing until he could stack the jury? Never say so.
“It’s becoming an increasing problem. People just don’t seem to care about marijuana cases anymore,” said Brian Towne, the LaSalle County prosecuting attorney.
The issue is ripe in Montana, which is home to the headquarters of the Fully Informed Jury Association, a national group that encourages jurors to nullify laws they believe are unjust.
H/T WIN
2 comments:
Yeah, that brings up an interesting topic. Not the marijauna issue at it's core, but the idea of excusing multiple jurors based on their belief over a certain issue. Let's say it's a murder - are they only going to take jurors who fervently believe in the death penalty and excuse those who do not? What if they are then creating a jury base of people who would convict the person and hand out a death penalty sentence no matter what the evidence suggests? What if they ignore the 'beyond reasonable doubt' part and just start tying the noose?
I can see the 'problem' if people are outright saying they could not convict this pot seller, but I agree with the message above wondering if it truly is a sampling of 'peers' when so many are being passed aside until they finally get someone who would be willing to convict. I also wonder about the tax payers money involved in such a long jury selection process, etc etc.
I personally think it's a huge waste of money to have people in prison for selling a little baggie of weed. I know SO many people who smoke it (either from time to time or on a daily basis) and the vast majority of them have their lives put together firmly and responsibly. I cant imagine one of them getting serious jail time for selling a few buds to a friend or neighbour.
But back to the matter at hand, it's an interesting thing to think about - jury selection and how it's handled in cases like this. They need to get with the program and advance with the times - just like it is getting harder and harder to find jury members who are not familiar with a case due to the expanse of media coverage for so many cases. They'd have to find someone with no internet, tv or newspaper and who doesn't socialize with anyone lol.
Hey Kez,
Feeling better these days? Stinks to be in the dark about ones own health status. I hope you get the answers you need very soon.
I honestly thought that each side was only allowed to excuse a set number of jurors because of their beliefs, that restriction was put in place so the defendant does indeed get a fair representation of the present day population. I guess I used to watch to much T.V.
Post a Comment