
The
NY times describes "Montana Jurors Raise Hopes of Marijuana Advocates" Dec. 24:
To seat a 12-person jury, Judge Robert L. Deschamps III of Missoula County District Court had called a passel of Montanans to serve, and 27 had arrived at court on Dec. 16. So far, so good.
But after the charges were read, one of the jurors raised a hand.
“She said, ‘I’ve got a real problem with these marijuana cases,’ ” Judge Deschamps recalled on Wednesday. “And after she got through, a couple more raised their hands.” All told, five jurors raised questions about marijuana prosecution.
And so it was that Mr. Cornell soon became the lucky recipient of a case of almost-a-jury nullification, as prosecutors soon found themselves cutting a deal to dismiss the misdemeanor possession charge out of fear that they would not be able to find 12 jurors in this marijuana-friendly state to convict.
A spokesman for the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws is quoted in the
Missoulian Independent (alternative weekly):
Allen St. Pierre, director of NORML, says potential jurors nearly nullifiying a case because many of them refused to convict someone for possessing a small amount of marijuana suggests Montanans have rediscovered their right to buck an unjust law.
“Going back to the founding of this country," he tells the Indy, "if [someone is] sitting in judgment of fellow citizens, you as a juror always have the right and responsibility to either convict or not convict them—and not convicting them you can do if the law itself is a bad law, if it doesn’t make any sense."
Note - the FIJA movement (Fully Informed Jury Amendment), was started in Montana in the late 1980s by then Libertarian Party State Chairman Larry Dodge.
1 comment:
This is an interesting case, and one of the few I've heard of where the jurors made it explicitly clear that they were actually engaging in nullification.
Normally, when a jury simply acquits, you can't be totally sure what motivated them.
Post a Comment