Home | About | Forums | Links | Contact | LR Int'l | Video | RSS
Daily e-mail updates from
Libertarian Republican.

Friday, December 24, 2010

FIJA is back! Jury Nullification over Marijuana case in Montana

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:

SFJD said...

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.