Political & Elections

hayden · Senior Member

Jury selection in marijuana case

BigG · Guru

Appellate judges don't re-try acquitals now do they?

I suspose the DA could try to re-open a case despite double jeopardy, or look for a legal loophole to try the defendant for the same action under another statute.

As far as one juror reporting another; That can happen after the jury is sequestered?

Can a judge declare a mistrial after a verdict is rendered? I don't think so.
Seems wrong. Too easy for the judge to replace a juror that has decided against the state.

hayden · Senior Member

"The "people's laws"? BARF!!!!
Laws are all too frequently political things passed by political beings for political reasons. All too frequently laws are passed to suit the highest bidder.

Or does anyone actually want to deny the enormous power of lobbyists? How do you think health insurance reform got so screwed up?"

I see. And who decides which of our laws should be simply overturned because you believe the elected lawmakers decided wrongly? Should we get rid of both judges, and the entire legislative branch as well? How do we make laws if not by electing people to do it?

"The denial of juries their traditional, and legal, right to refuse a conviction based on bad law is a symptom of the increasing stratification and ossification of our former republic."

As I understand what happened, it's not that the jury refused to convict, but that the prospective jurors said they couldn't apply the subject law, and therefore they couldn't get a jury. That might be nitpicking, though, since the result is the same.

SLS's point is interesting, but keep in mind - it's not the underlying fundamentals of the law that these prospective jurors didn't agree with, but rather the amounts of drugs at issue. Would these same jurors have refused to apply the law if the amounts were, say, several kilos instead of the actual amounts? It's not hard in America to seat a jury on a death penalty case.

"If you disrespect the Judge, you get a contempt citation. If you ignore the Judge's instructions, how does he/she know? Juries recieve much the same immunity that
Judges do for actions in the process of the trial.

Judges are in charge of appeals. They are only moderators at jury trials. The jury, not the judge, decides."

Jurors and judges have a certain level of immunity in their decisions. I'm not sure how that impacts the subject at hand. Jurors can do any number of things that judges don't find out about. Remember though that any juror who says anything in the jury room that castes doubt on the validity of that juror's vote, can be reported by a fellow juror. If one reports it, the judge can either declare a mistrial, or if it occurs before the decision starts, throw the juror off.

As to appeals: judges don't overturn the jury's decision per se on appeal. They decide the application of law. So in other words, they decide if the process followed the law (e.g., was the judge's instruction to the jury proper), if the evidence that the jury considered admitted properly, etc. Appelate judges don't re-try facts.

"Remember that in today's society, people of very modest moral and intellectual accomplishment do become lawyers, legislatures and judges. "

And people of very modest moral and intellectual accomplishment frequently serve on juries, too. And they usually know a lot less about the law than the lawyers and judges in the trials.

BigG · Guru

Another link;
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html

The "people's laws"? BARF!!!!

Laws are all too frequently political things passed by political beings for political reasons. All too frequently laws are passed to suit the highest bidder.

Or does anyone actually want to deny the enormous power of lobbyists?

How do you think health insurance reform got so screwed up?

The denial of juries their traditional, and legal, right to refuse a conviction based on bad law is a symptom of the increasing stratification and ossification of our former republic.

If you disrespect the Judge, you get a contempt citation. If you ignore the Judge's instructions, how does he/she know? Juries recieve much the same immunity that
Judges do for actions in the process of the trial.

Judges are in charge of appeals. They are only moderators at jury trials. The jury, not the judge, decides.

Remember that in today's society, people of very modest moral and intellectual accomplishment do become lawyers, legislatures and judges.

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 26th of December 2010 04:20:16 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 26th of December 2010 04:21:53 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 26th of December 2010 04:26:59 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 26th of December 2010 04:31:21 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 26th of December 2010 04:32:13 PM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Jury nullification is an interesting idea.

How many people on capital cases feel that they couldn't give the death penalty to a criminal who is found guilty of murder? What about those who are anti-gun on trials involving people with gun offenses? What about the prejudice that some people may have towards other races or ethnicities in determining guilt or innocence?

hayden · Senior Member

BigG, I'm not an attorney, but I don't think you are correct. I read the first page of your link, and I think the idea that the founding fathers intended jurors to overturn the laws of the people is nonsense.

You seem to think of "government" as something entirely different from elected representatives of the people. A jury of 12 people is not intended by the Constitution to overturn the laws legislated by the representatives of a majority of voting citizens. In fact, I would guess that it would be anathema to the Founding Fathers, to the extent that it means the judicial system encroaches on the powers of the legislative branch.

Jury nullification is not some wonderful concept enshrined in the Constitution. It's simply what it's called when a jury acts against the normal application of a law.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Interesting article. I wasn't surprised at first because it said Seattle. But then I read that it was in Montana, which surprised me because I thought Montana was a more conservative state.

The only thing that scares me a bit is what the judge (?) pointed out- if anyone who disagrees with the law and says they won't convict him is dismissed from the jury- is it REALLY a jury of your peers? Slippery slope for now IMO :/

BigG · Guru

"Jury nullification"; The phrase the legal profession hopes Americans never learn.

The idea that the opinions of laymen were actually meant by the Founding Fathers to be a check on the tyranny and outright idiocy of legislators is anathema to the legal profession.

Interesting link;
http://fija.org/

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-marijuana-juries-20101225,0,2484761.story

Would you be willing to convict a person for possession of a small amount of marijuana? Look at what happened in Montana:

It seemed a straightforward case: 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 interesting thing I find about this case is that this guy wasn't simply a "recreational" user, but a dealer. He also didn't have a clean criminal background.

As for myself, I would have a hard time convicting someone of possession for small amounts for personal use. (I am not a user of this drug, but I don't think it's any worse than alcohol.)

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Sunday 26th of December 2010 03:12:27 PM