I was called for jury duty yesterday--consternation ensued

[librechik]

I was chosen with about 50 other people for the first jury selection. The crime was possession of "cocaine" and possession with intent to sell of "cocaine." The defendant was a little old black man whose nervous habits (OCD) and complete misery were obvious to anyone.

The judge went through the list of disqualifications and people left due to not speaking English enough to follow, having a disabled person at home, etc. Finally he asked if there were any other reasons we might need to disqualify and i raised my hand.

They handed me the microphone and I said, "Your honor, It's my belief that the drug laws in this country are wrong, and the penalties fall unequally on minorities. I would be compelled to release this gentleman immediately, perhaps to a healthcare facility."

I heard a gasp around the room. The judge did not expect this, and he stammered a bit before he said, "well of course you are entitled to your opinion. And I'm sure lots of people agree with you. But would your opinion cause you to be unable to make a fair judgement?"

I said "Sir the laws are unfair. If you put me on the jury I would have to vote for acquittal without even looking at the evidence. This man shouldn't be here."

The judge sighed. "Does anyone else in here have the same opinion?" About 20 people raised their hands. They had to ask all of them if they thought they wouldn't be able to give a fair decision based on the law. In the end, I was the only one excused for believing the cocaine laws are unfair to blacks and shouldn't be used to judge an offender.

I hope everyone in the jury box paid attention to me as they make their judgement.

[riderinthestorm]

1. Wow!!! Bravo!!

[librechik]

2. thanks, I was shaking in my boots!

Colorado makes me brave, though--not so afraid of the pigs oink!

[indepat]

142. All America should be indebted to you for the courage tell the judge what he, every judge,

every legislator, every governor, and every Supreme Court Justice should hear and be constantly reminded. You have earned a big

[Scuba]

73. +1,000

[billhicks76]

169. Yes. All Drug Laws Are Wrong.

Jury Nullification!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jenoch]

3. If this old guy had teens selling 'cocaine'

at area high schools, you would be ok with that?

[KingCharlemagne]

6. That wasn't the charge at issue. Nice strawman effort . . . NOT! - nt

[Jenoch]

12. The OP said he was charged with intent to sell.

[KingCharlemagne]

17. Not in a school and not employing underlings. Jeesh - nt

[azureblue]

51. That's one of those

"overcharging" tactics. If you are caught with drugs in two separate containers, or, assuming this is crack, and you have 2 pieces, they throw this at you to escalate the jail time. Possession is a misdemeanor - sales is a felony. Cops do this to blacks on a regular basis, because they hope for a plead out, due to the severity of the charges. Felonies cost more to defend, and the cops and the DA are banking on a black person not having enough money to defend, so they use a public defender who is overworked and will push for a plead out, to reduce his work load.

If the guy was white, he would not be charged with intent to sell, because a good lawyer would see this as overcharging and get the felony thrown out, then get the possession penalty reduced to probation.

[Live and Learn]

157. It does happen to white people too. Even those with lawyers.

I know several young people it has happened to.

[Kelvin Mace]

61. Prosecutors routinely pile on charges in drug cases

in order to pressure defendants to "plead out". They then threaten to make you regret fighting them if you don't take the deal. Yes, there are scumbags out there, but they are seriously outclassed by the folks in "law enforcement."

[nichomachus]

109. The police always say intent to sell -- whether you were or not

Look at the poor SOB they stopped on the highway who had more money than the copy thought he should have $2,400. The cop decided that he was on his way out of state to buy drugs and seized his car under civil forfeiture.

Cops are pretty much liars.

[H2O Man]

29. Okay, but what if

he had killed 2,037 innocent people on an average day. What if he attempted to force people to watch re-runs of the cult classic episodes of "My Mother the Car"? What would you think then?

Quit trying to avoid these central issues.

[librechik]

13. of course not--but no one is going to get a fair trial in this country with the drug laws that exist

especially if they sell crack and not cocaine to rich college kids.

That guy was not a threat to anyone. I'm 4;10" and i could have knocked him over. He was obviously just a poor addict caught in a cynical sting. Not a "dealer" And any evidence they might have brought against him would be suspect to me because I know how the cops work here. They got him to sell them (the cops) the crack repeatedly on camera. Not to kids. Then they grabbed him, because he was no threat to them at all and nobody would get hurt. No guns, that would have been in the charges. Just a "good" bust.

[LanternWaste]

37. No good deed goes unpunished via a hypothetical irrelevancy.

No good deed goes unpunished via a hypothetical irrelevancy. You illustrated the courage of your convictions and that tends to ruffle the feathers of the fractious and the peevish.

[librechik]

39. thx, LW!

I resemble that remark!

[Voice for Peace]

63. that's an outstanding comment

No good deed goes unpunished via a hypothetical irrelevance.

[treestar]

41. You don't know because you didn't listen to the evidence

Though at least erring on this side is not as bad as erring on the other (people presuming black people are guilty).

Still, the guy could have been guilty - height has nothing to do with it. Charles Manson was little too.

What he "obviously" is - all prejudgment. At least it's in someone's favor while it's usually the other way round. But you've been kind of unfair to the prosecutor - won't even listen to their side.

[librechik]

46. that's the thing--we shouldn't be prosecuting this guy in a court of law.

I suppose it's just his job etc, but they don't do this in other countries and we don't have to either. Addicts are put into recovery programs rather than prison in a lot of countries, and we should be following their overwhelmingly successful lead, not making the oligarchs pockets full with a penal system which is at least partially privatized and employing slave labor. Addicts can't help themselves, and usually when they sell it's just to get their own stash. Sending them to prison is just morally wrong. They're nothing but political victims of a racist state. All of em, even the big strong rich ones.

The oligarchy addicts us on purpose to make another criminal class.

[freebrew]

75. Anti-drug sentiment runs deep...

hell, the people of the US and even the rest of the world have been programmed for the last 90 years(and more) that anything that makes you feel good must be wrong. I'm surprised to see the depth of the brain-washing here on DU though.
Whether it's cannabis, cocaine or heroin, someone is going to be against its use. Alcohol has been demonized.
Codeine is killing people. Bullshit.

Look around. The most dangerous drug is available over the counter and even kids can buy it.
But it doesn't get you high, so it's legal. Tylenol kills. But no one wants to ban it.

Drug laws are here to give the LEOs another reason to harass and intimidate.

[Ed Suspicious]

170. This. My wife is on a short term run of vycodin as needed, and it is the acetomenaphin that has me

doing mathmatics every day to make sure she doesn't fry her liver. This after decades of hearing how tylenol is the safest, dr recommended pain relief medication on the face of the earth.

[Voice for Peace]

66. Not unfair to the prosecutor! Just honest, heartfelt, brave.

I was called for jury duty once and answered honestly that
I didn't feel able to judge others' guilt or innocence, regardless
of evidence. The defense tried hard to get me on that jury!

[CreekDog]

28. i see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3148607

[KingCharlemagne]

30. Wow, that is really something, isn't it? Good catch, btw! - nt

[librechik]

33. .

[H2O Man]

34. I agree!

[librechik]

36. thx!

[Kelvin Mace]

65. Ah, one of those

OK, explains a lot.

[Jackpine Radical]

96. Ya just can't get away wit' nuttin' around here.

[Android3.14]

98. Darn that wayback machine

How dare you reveal someone's bias against scary black folks.

[annabanana]

124. Ta daa! . . .n/t

[closeupready]

185. Wow. In two words, you've managed the year's best zinger.

Bravo!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

69. What a stupid, irrelevant question. Jesus Christ! nt

[SomethingFishy]

89. ROFLMFAO...

Wow.. the old "Pusher" meme... Good one.

You do realize that the days of people "pushing drugs" are long gone if they ever existed at all. People are seeking the drugs out no one has to go stand outside a high school and "offer" them.

The War on Drugs has been a epic fuck up and failure. Billions if not trillions of dollars and billions of man hours and it is just as easy for me to get whatever I want now as it was when I was in high school in the early 80's. JUST AS EASY.

For all the money and all the work, for all the dead people and all the people in prison they haven't so much as put a minor fucking dent in the flow or use of drugs.

One more thing, a boat owned by Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mconnells father-in-law was busted last month with 40 keys of Coke on it. Heard about it? Seen anyone go to court?

[Jackpine Radical]

99. Shouldn't that boat be confiscated

due to its involvement in a drug crime? Let it prove its innocence, I say!

[SomethingFishy]

102. Yup, and McConnel has been screaming about more Federal money for the drug war

can you imagine the press if it was a Democratic family busted for 40 Kg's of Coke?

[frylock]

91. won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!

[rhett o rick]

104. LOL. If you have an opinion, have the fortitude to express it without the pointed, insinuating

questions.

[Jenoch]

137. My comment/question was not about this particular case.

I believe dealers should be prosecuted and users sent for treatment until it works.

[rhett o rick]

145. Well if that's true it would have been much better had you stated that instead

of asking a very pointed, insinuating question. Just sayin.

[Jenoch]

146. With little information to go on,

it is not unreasonable to assume that a drug dealer has minions out on the streets selling dope. That's how drugs are distributed to the users.

[Tsiyu]

150. Well, this is what you need to tell your kids:

"If someone tries to give you drugs:


Thank them. Because drugs are expensive."


Seriously, the drug pushers today are wearing heels and designer skirts, preying on doctors. You don't have to worry about the street pushers anymore. The Pharmaceutical companies are the Big Bad Pushers today.

But 1980 called and they want their ignorance back! You are so funny!

[Jenoch]

152. If you believe there are not dealers

selling illegal drugs (not illegal prescription drugs) in America, then you are just as naieve as you first appear.

[Tsiyu]

159. If you believe that low level street dealers are as much of a problem

in this nation as the spewing of opiates done by the Pharmaceutical companies, you would be the "naieve" one.

[Jenoch]

164. You certainly are assuming a lot.

The OP had a topic on illegal narcotics. That is what I have been commenting upon. You brought prescription drugs up which is another topic. You have zero knowlege on what I know about that subject.

[Tsiyu]

165. After reading through many of your posts

I'd kinda like to maintain that "zero knowledge" about you.

Sorry to have engaged...carry on.......

[CreekDog]

188. you have not posted anything to indicate greater than zero knowledge of the topic

[Jenoch]

190. The only knowledge I have is from the OP, which is quite little.

Do you have any facts to add?

[Live and Learn]

161. No, what is naive is not believing that some of the prescription drugs are just as dangerous

and that big pharma isn't the worst dealer out there. If you legalized all drugs, the dealers would just become salesmen.

Do you see any difference between the shop owners selling marijuana in Colorado and somebody on the street in any other state selling it?

Edited to add: Legalizing drugs would also allow regulation of them and result in safer drugs than the ones currently available on the street.

[Jenoch]

181. I have never made a statement saying there is not a problem

of prescription drug abuse in this country. Why did you assume otherwise?

[Live and Learn]

158. +1 nt

[CreekDog]

187. you already decided that he's a drug dealer

seemingly as fast as you decided Zimmerman wasn't a murderer.

funny that.

[Jenoch]

189. I never said, wrote, posted, or decided that the

defendant in the OP was a dealer.

I also am on record saying that Zimmerman should have done prison time. I never once wrote, posted, or in any other way defended Zimmerman. If you think you can find a post in which I indicated otherwise, go for it.

[butterfly77]

135. The prosecutor ...

may be using cocaine and may even be a seller..Hypocrites.

[Voice for Peace]

4. BRAVO!!

You may have been that guy's salvation.

[librechik]

52. thx, I hope so

wouldn't that be great?

[gvstn]

5. I'm impressed.

I don't think I would ever have the guts to do that. Good for you and I hope the other potential jurors do keep that in mind when making their judgement.

[librechik]

50. thanks, I got pretty mouthy in grad school.

I guess I never got over it!

[Savannahmann]

7. You should have stayed

you should have stayed and made that argument in the deliberations. Hoping they consider it is great, but insuring that it is considered would have been more effective for this man. Worst case, hung jury, best case, full acquittal.

The arguments are painfully simple. St. Agustine, an unjust law is no law. The Jury has a duty to decide not only if the defendant broke the law, but if the law is unjust, or unjustly applied.

Kudos for your speech, I just think it would have been better placed, more effective, and better timed in the jury deliberations.

[tblue]

11. ^^this^^ nt

[librechik]

19. I know, I thought about it furiously until they dismissed me.

In the end, I trusted the panel that was chosen. There were 3 social workers, several African Americans, and a woman who worked with young offenders. I think he'll get a fair trial with them. I'm a rebel, but I'm glad there are still people who believe in the system which I have lost faith in.

[Major Nikon]

177. It's certainly an interesting case

The bottom line is you should answer pre-trial jury questions truthfully and you probably shouldn't advertise your belief in jury nullification while in the courtroom.

[librechik]

27. thanks, I worried about the timing. Next time i'll save it. n/t

[hueymahl]

35. Not sure I agree

Even at this stage, most cases settle before a jury verdict. Defendants will often press until the end, even up to the point where the jury is deliberating, hoping to get a slightly better deal, but not willing to face a potential verdict and the potential for a full sentence.

I think your speech was brilliant and perfectly timed.

[librechik]

38. bless you! and you are correct about the pleas--

I hope they do the right thing. I could be wrong but I think the gentleman should go into treatment, not a crowded prison facility.

[Jackpine Radical]

100. You could always also go for jury nullification.

But everyone is second-guessing you. You were well-intended and took courageous action to stand up for your principles. That's enough.

[WillowTree]

8. Why the quotation marks around the word cocaine? Just curious.

[moriah]

18. I'm guessing because she assumes they found crack, not powered cocaine.

But guesses and assumptions are stupid.

[librechik]

21. yes--I just assumed. That guy was not a "cocaine" dealer

IMO

[tblue]

9. Cool! Except we need to serve on juries.

The deck is so mercilessly stacked against the little guy, I WANT to serve on a jury every chance I get. The last time I was called to serve, I squirmed out of it because the timing was really bad for me personally. But I've regretted it ever since. I can't wait to be called up again. You too, I hope. We need people like you on juries! Otherwise, juries will be filled with only those who don't have your insight and compassion, who may not see the larger issues that place a case in context.

[librechik]

53. you are right--

I go every year--usually they dismiss me for this or that, tho, lol

[Voice for Peace]

70. you're right. I've regretted being too honest in jury selection

because I really would like to see a trial through, have a
chance to make a difference.

[Yo_Mama]

10. Tell it to your fellow jury members, not the judge.

No need to state it before you get selected!!

[librechik]

26. thanks for the advice, I suppose I could have been more subversive. Maybe next time! n/t

[rhett o rick]

108. What you did took a lot of courage and I applaud you for it.

While you could have been more subversive but you would have had to get on the jury and even then I am not sure you would have had as big an impact as you made. If you are not familiar with jury nullification I recommend you read up on it.

Speaking out like you did makes a big impact. Once again, bravo. I hope that I would be as brave in a similar circumstance.

[liberalhistorian]

14. Good for you!

I would have kept quiet and gone for jury nullification. I understand that that's becoming more common, fortunately.

[librechik]

54. will remember that for next year, thanks! n/t

[Travis_0004]

15. I dont have an issue with pot

But I find it a bit tougher to not take issue with drug dealers though. Pot will be legal in most states soon enough, but I dont thin cocaine will be, or should be legal.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

76. There should be NO criminal penalties for possessing, or personally ingesting anything!

Take all the money out of drug enforcement and setup inpatient recovery clinics for those that need help.

Much more cost effective, and would have much better results for everyone.

[LittleGirl]

105. Exactly! eom

[branford]

114. You are certainly entitled to your opinion,

but it is certainly not the law. You are free to lobby elected representatives to change the law, as is being done with respect to pot, with increasingly public approval. However, only a small fringe currently seeks to legalize harder drugs like cocaine and heroin, with little indication of a change in the public's mood.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

120. AND you are entitled to your opinion.

I never said it was the law, I said the law shouldn't be involved. You'd be surprised how many people, especially in the drug treatment end of things that thinks this would be better for all concerned.

[branford]

122. The issue is whether you would be honest about your opinions if called for jury duty.

If so, you would certainly be acting in the appropriate and legal manner, as was the OP.

However, my general concern is that some in this thread believe it appropriate to lie or withhold pertinent information during jury selection in order to advance their personal views of drug laws and sentencing. I find that particularly troubling. First, it corrupts the system. The proper venue to change laws is the legislature. Moreover, such lies and omissions are perjurious, and could result in the activist juror's prosecution for perjury or criminal contempt, regardless of whether he or she manages to actually get on the jury or affect the verdict. It's also not jury nullification as the term is commonly understood, as that requires a honest and properly selected jury to engage in good faith deliberations before rendering an acquittal in the interests of justice. Tipping the scales by deceit before hearing the evidence is corrupt, not noble. If justified for drug charges, it would condone similar similar actions concerning gun charges, sexual assault allegations, and other criminal matters that have a political component or perspective, and would not be supported by the majority here on DU..

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

149. One thing I'm not is dishonest.

I cannot tell a lie. Well, I could if I wanted to, but I don't. I'm sure I'd lie in a life or death situation though.

[ProfessorGAC]

186. Lie Or This Fly Gets It!

Life or death, you said!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

191. Good. I hope by not lying all the flies die. Mosquitos too!

[ProfessorGAC]

192. Hmmm!

That didn't work out as i intended. I'll have to rethink that whole approach.

[Lee-Lee]

16. I'm not impressed

You found a way to get out of jury duty and feel good about yourself.

You should have sat through selection and let both sides ask you about your views, and been honest. If you didn't get picked then, it would be because you would have said the same things and the rest of the pool still heard it.

But you may very well have been picked, and would have sat on the jury where instead of a lecture about what should have been done you would have been on the jury to make sure it was done.

You took the easy way out. It's nothing to say the jury should rule in a certain way with intent to get yourself out of jury duty. If you really wanted to make a difference you would have sat there and made every attempt to be on that jury (without perjuring yourself of course) because on the jury instead of a pointless lecture about how the case should be ruled you would have been able to make that actually happen as a part of the jury.

[librechik]

25. I would have been stopped at some point. My dad was an abusive Denver cop

who loved beating up perps with his British Bobby stick that he sent away for and learned all the moves. He told me hilarious stories of the pranks the white cops pulled on the black cops. I used to hang out at the cop shop with him, and let me tell you, I have never heard the n word used so much--and i was just a kid!

One day he said he was going to teach me about our court system. He took me to a trial where a cop friend of his was going to give evidence. Once we were seated, he whispered to me " Now i'm going to show you how this works--cops are allowed to lie, even in court, to make their case. Sometimes they have to, to get the bad guys." I was only 12, but I still found this surprising.

The cop gave his testimony and once or twice my dad winked at me as, I suppose, a lie was uttered.

I've never trusted cops since then, and in my own interactions with them, I found them to be fairly corrupt.

Usually they find out about this and dismiss me. I'm just bad for juries.

[MindPilot]

141. Having endured abuse from Denver cops...

I may know your dad, or he may know me.

But, yeah, I've been in that same situation in a courtroom. The judge finally got so exasperated with people expressing their distaste for drug laws in general and how they were being applied to this case in particular, he finally asked the panel "who has a problem with drug laws?" Easily 30 people raised their hands, and the judge said "you're all excused". The case was a not-so-bright person for whom the possession of a miniscule amount of cocaine was going to be his 3rd strike, and if convicted he would go away for life.

Seems like a decent lawyer would have a much better chance at acquittal or even dismissal at that point.

Good on you for having the courage to speak up. I have a whole rant about the for-profit prison system planned for my next jury summons.

[Warpy]

20. Thank you!

All I have to do is tell the truth about my weird family and nobody wants me on a jury.

Faced with the drug trial of a harmless old man, I would wish I could display your courage.

Or I'd just vote for acquittal on the grounds he was not a public threat and get him a hung jury.

[librechik]

22. thank you warpy--I am really of two minds about it

and what has been said here is thought provoking indeed.

[Warpy]

23. You stood up and told the truth

While torpedoing a jury with common sense seems as attractive, there could be real world consequences for doing so, like a contempt of court citation and jail time.

[hueymahl]

40. Don't see any risk

The voir dire process is a form of protected speech.

Her speech was both brilliant and well timed, in my humble opinion. More people should do this.

[Voice for Peace]

72. I'm also of two minds after reading .. I did once make a point of being utterly honest

as I don't find myself clairvoyant enough to make judgements
about other people's guilt or innocence. So the defense wanted
me on the jury, but I was dismissed.

Next time I plan to be more devious, or at least useful. I think
you made a great call. Proud of you.

[Sunlei]

24. I agree with you about the drug laws. Would be best to be a part of the jury.

When you're in the jury you can hear all the evidence and still vote against the 'police version'.

[librechik]

56. Thanks, I'm convinced

next year, watch out!

Meh, they usually get rid of me anyway--they don't like liberals in the justice system. And i flunk the "do you believe police officers lie?" question.

[SalviaBlue]

31. Good on you!!! nt

[rusty fender]

32. Excellent, excellent!

[Dreamer Tatum]

42. That story is cool. nt

[librechik]

79. thanks, Dreamer! n/t

[HoosierCowboy]

43. Jury Nullification

Is the ultimate power of the citizenry. The one real power that the system gives to the everyday man that's usually ignored, and can be more effective than all the lobbyists and legislatures combined.

It says "Fuck You" to unjust and unpopular laws and costs the state money to unsuccessfully enforce them.

Jury Nullification needs to go viral.

[librechik]

55. gosh, I had no idea, but several have mentioned that in this thread

I'll remember next time they call me.

[iamthebandfanman]

44. been in your shoes before...

only it was a marijuana case.. intent to sale and possession..
gave the same reason right off the bat when I was selected for the narrowed down jury pool...
that I didn't think drug laws were effective and that punishment by incarceration has never rehabilitated any drug user I had ever met.. that a rehab or mental health facility was the best place for people with addictions, not jail..
I got excused as well.
unfortunately I didn't get the same opportunity to share with everyone else.. the judge called me up to the bench to ask me my reasons.

in retrospect ive often wondered if I shouldn't have spoken up and helped the guy out.. but I didn't want to lie about my beliefs..
he was convicted and sent to jail, or so I read in the paper later on...

[librechik]

59. thanks for trying!

they didn't have that on the written questionnaire this year, and there wasn't a place for general comments either. That's why I spoke up, when they asked the question in court. I usually get dumped because of answers I've given on the questionnaire. lol.

[calimary]

45. MAN! FABULOUS! Impressive, librechik!

Last edited Tue Nov 18, 2014, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Plant the seeds. Stack the Legos. Chip away at the wall. It only takes one to get something started. Wow - just think: you all by yourself have more backbone, and bigger balls, than we see in most of the inhabitants of Capitol Hill - male OR female.

Rereading the other comments here - some of them are indeed quite valid (the "you should have stayed" ones) and I can appreciate the strategy behind them immensely! Being a subversive thinker myself, I can easily go that way. However, I still like what you did. You didn't just influence a potential jury. Your comments in open court like that - influenced EVERYBODY THERE. Potential jurors and others. You saw for yourself how there were some 20 others who, when asked, showed they felt the same way you did. Which I'm sure was illuminating to the judge and everyone else in court.

THE WORST PART OF THIS IS THE FEELING OF BEING ALONE. Probably everyone who raised his/her hand in agreement with your stated feelings was as nervous and shaky as you were. But now we know that in that courtroom there were many who share your view. EVERYBODY in that courtroom knew. I suspect there were a few more who also agreed but were reluctant to say so openly. This is, after all, a viewpoint against the big "just say no" machine that's dominated our country for years and forced upon us drug policies about which you presented very legitimate objections.

Sometimes, all it takes is to know somebody else shares your views or your feelings. You may have liberated and empowered others in that courtroom who heard your assertive comments - and maybe next time, THEY might feel motivated to speak up, too. Because they just found out THEY aren't alone in feeling that way, either. You may have started a little something!

[librechik]

62. that's a low bar, calimary lol

but wow, calimary gave me a thumbs up! Thanks!

[calimary]

116. Hey, I am the original low bar!

[calimary]

117. Btw - I LOVE your little percussion video!

Man and Dog. BOTH ROCKIN'!

[daleanime]

47. ........

[librechik]

64. ah, thanks!

[KamaAina]

48. Damn! They should have let you be foreman!

[librechik]

67. after this thread, that's what I'm going for next time

Don't tell anyone!

[KamaAina]

49. That would make a killer episode of Law & Order.

[MohRokTah]

57. Bravo!

Well done. The only thing I would do differently is to say this:

"Sir the laws are unfair. If you put me on the jury I would have no other choice but to engage my legal right of jury nullification over an unfair law and vote for acquittal without even looking at the evidence. This man shouldn't be here."

[Kelvin Mace]

58. My objection was mandatory sentencing laws

Which I explained to the judge were, in my opinion, and unconstitutional infringement of the judiciary by the legislature. The judge almost laughed.

[Jack Rabbit]

60. !!

[librechik]

85. I'm as surprised as you

Thanks, Jack!

[hedgehog]

68. Good for you!

[librechik]

101. thanks hh!

[brooklynite]

71. UNREC

Sorry, I can't jump on the bandwagon.

Let's assume the defendant was charged with illegally selling a weapon, and a 2nd amendment absolutist believed that "the gun laws in this country were wrong" (given the 2nd Amendment, he'd be on much firmer ground than the OP was). Would people be cheering his willingness to "vote for acquittal without even looking at the evidence"?

I disagree with our drug laws as well. But outside of laws that violate constitution rights, we change our laws through the political process.

[librechik]

80. hypothetical straw man

but thanks for your opinion!

[brooklynite]

86. You got me...nobody EVER gets arrested for gun possession

ATF Gun Sting: 60 indicted on guns, drugs & violence; 5 remain at large

Sixty people were indicted and 110 firearms were seized as part of a months-long enhanced enforcement initiative targeting the criminal possession, use and sale of firearms in Greater Cleveland, law enforcement officials announced Friday.

42 people were indicted in federal court while 18 people were indicted in state court. Charges include engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license, being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, possession of unregistered firearms that had been modified (sawed-off shotguns), possession and sale of firearms with obliterated serial numbers and related drug counts.

The indictments are the result of "Operation Samson II". The first group used undercover operations to investigate people known to criminally possess, use and sell firearms, as well as people possessing firearms while conducting drug activities. The second group, referred to as the "Follow the Gun Group," used firearms trace data and ballistics information from the National Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) to pursue leads related to firearms that have been diverted from legal commerce to criminal use. Many of those investigations remain ongoing. The third group involved ATF Industry Operations conducting inspections at Cleveland-area federal firearms licensees to ensure that dealers are selling firearms in accordance with federal law and regulations.

http://www.19actionnews.com/story/26756836/60-people-indicted-investigation-focused-on-guns-and-drugs-and-violence-in-cleveland

[LanternWaste]

119. Hence, the judicious and righteous incarceration of patients ingesting medical marijuana in Texas.

" we change our laws through the political process..."

Hence, the judicious, lawful and most righteous incarceration of cancer patients ingesting medical marijuana in Texas.

[Curmudgeoness]

74. Many here are saying that you should have kept quiet

and got on the jury. I disagree, not because I don't think it would have better to be sitting on the jury and able to possibly sway the jury or hang it, but because the question we are all asked prior to being seated on a jury is "are there any reasons that you might not be able to render a fair judgment based on the facts presented?"

If you are being honest, as you were, you could not be silent. Silence would have been lying.

It really is a dilemma for those of us who want to try to influence the system from within, but do we compromise ourselves to get there?

[librechik]

82. thanks for the thoughtful reply, Curmudgeoness

It was really a spur of the moment thing, but that's what I was thinking when i spoke up at the disqualifications.

[NaturalHigh]

77. Good for you.

That was a courageous thing to do, especially in that atmosphere.

[grahamhgreen]

78. Freaking awesome! We just decriminilized most drugs to a misdemeanor in CA.

[iscooterliberally]

81. I am so glad you did this.

I always show up for jury duty in the hopes that I could do the exact same thing. I have always wanted to tell a judge that the entire controlled substances act of 1970 needs to be thrown out and the DEA along with it. Thank you for doing what I have not been able to do. I have served on two juries so far. One was a murder trial and the other was a resisting arrest with violence. I have been called many times, but only chosen twice. We need more people like you in this country, that's for sure! Great job!

[librechik]

84. thank you dear scooter

and welcome to DU!

[iscooterliberally]

94. LOL - I have been here a long time. I just don't post much.

You brought me out today!

[hunter]

83. I've been called to jury duty a few times but have never served on one.

[FSogol]

87. Same here. We have the system where you are added to a pool and have to phone in to see if

you are required to appear the next day. I never get picked.

[davidpdx]

166. Never been called, never will

I live outside the country, so unless they want to spring for the plane ticket they are out of luck.

[SCantiGOP]

88. good for you!!!

It's called jury nullification, and I would have taken the same stance. Maybe you changed some minds by your actions.

(edited to say "good for you" instead of "god for you" which makes absolutely no sense!

[librechik]

97. thx, SC--love your sig!

[branford]

113. That's not really jury nullification.

Lying on voir dire to purportedly "help the little guy," "oppose draconian drug laws," etc. is nothing more than perjury. I respect that the OP honestly responded to the attorneys' and judge's questions, and then was appropriately eliminated from the jury pool.

In a true jury nullification scenario, open and honest jurors are selected, they properly hear the evidence, deliberate, and then vote to acquit in the interests of justice despite the weight of the evidence. Nevertheless, at all times the jury acts honestly and in good faith. Lying or willfully withholding pertinent information in order to to get on a jury to sway it's results is not noble, it's corrupt.

The vast majority of jurors are quite honest and determined to follow the law and their instructions, and generally will not hesitate to report true activists on the jury to the judge. If an activist juror is not quickly removed after deliberations begin in favor of an alternate juror, it may indeed force an acquittal, or more likely, a hung jury and retrial, if the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, such juror could soon end up a defendant in a perjury or criminal contempt prosecution for their activism. The juridical system and most citizens do not look kindly on dishonest jurors with agenda.

[jhart3333]

156. I've seen this before: "define it and then call them wrong"

>> That's not really jury nullification.

You have defined jury nullification as something that could never be attained. Nice try.

>> The juridical system and most citizens do not look kindly on dishonest jurors with agenda.

That's a bold statement. Care to back it up? Also, dishonest and with an agenda like what you are doing here? There has been a concerted effort over the years to take away our right to be judged by a jury of our peers in this country. The war against jury nullification is part of that effort and goes back more than 100 years. Another is the plea bargain which guarantees that only a small portion of cases actually go to trial, thereby taking away our right to be heard by a jury. Being judged by a jury of our peers goes all the way back to the Magna Carta and was instituted as the final protection from unjust laws and corrupt legal systems. You seem to be okay with throwing out that part our constitutionally guaranteed protections. I am not.

[branford]

162. You can personaly define a term any way you wish,

however, you cannot dispute how a term is commonly and generally understood by most of the populace.

Jury nullification is considered an act of justice by an honest jury who examines all the evidence in a trial in good faith, and only then decides that justice requires an acquittal. Such jury nullification is certainly rare and controversial, but very few scholars and jurists believe that any of the jurors in such a scenario would have committed a crime. Lying, misrepresenting or knowingly omitting pertinent information to counsel and the court in order to serve on a jury and sway the results, conversely, is unquestionably perjury, not "nullification," and quite likely criminal contempt and fraud. Assuming that such an activist juror was actually chosen, wasn't discovered by the other jurors and quickly replaced by an alternate, and even if they were successful in hanging the jury or causing an acquittal, criminal charges against the juror would still be possible.

As to my qualifications to discuss the nature and impact of jury nullification, as I've discussed in other posts on DU, I've been practicing trial attorney in NYC for over 17 years, and before that, it was one of the many issues I researched while employed at the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. How about you? Do you have more to offer than vague citations to the Magna Carta?

You complain about the erosion of the right to trial by an impartial jury. Could you kindly explain how individuals committing perjury to sway juries, a practice you appear to support, improves, rather than worsening, the issue? If racists, sexists or other prejudiced undesirables lie to get on juries, is this also acceptable?

I would note that activist jurors are not an totally uncommon phenomenon in jury selection in either the state or federal courts in many areas, and these individuals espouse views encompassing the full political spectrum. Most believe themselves truly furtive clever, much to the amusement of most experienced counsel and virtually all judges. It often lightens the otherwise tedious mood during bench conferences. Although most claims of bias are not genuine and simply mechanisms to avoid jury duty, both real overt and covert bias are not as difficult discern as many here would imagine.

In actuality, most individuals who try to sneak onto juries with unlawful motives are fairly easy to distinguish and dismiss, and the few who get by are usually discovered by other jurors, questions and investigated, and then quickly removed by the judge. Most jurors, both civil and criminal, take their duties very seriously and honestly and do not appreciate those jurors who do not. This simple understanding is hardly controversial among attorneys and other jurists. The most that an activist juror realistically could hope to achieve in a criminal trial in the vast majority of instances is a hung jury, with an almost guaranteed retrial with honest jurors and more determined and far less forgiving prosecutors, and possibly finding themselves as a future defendant.

It's very easy to talk big on an anonymous forum about how you would commit perjury and alone sway a jury, while in the real world before real judges, attorneys and other honest citizens, the bravado almost always turns into little more than personal fantasy.

If you oppose the drug (or any other) laws, recourse if found in the political and legislative sphere, not jury selection. If you cannot honestly overcome any bias, notify the court and counsel as directed, just as was done by the OP. That's how you ensure defendants (and all litigants) face a fair and impartial jury. Perjury will beget more perjury, and given the views and disposition of many of our fellow citizens, you will not like the result.

[jhart3333]

184. There you go again.

Claiming to have the inside track on how people in general perceive jury nullification is not an argument. When I asked you to back it up I meant with a citation of a study or paper. The Magna Carta for instance - not a vague reference, but a specific document that is seminal to the concept we are discussing here. Your claim is all the more incredible because there is a general lack of perception that jury nullification even exists as a result of concerted and successful efforts by the courts to hide it.

You ridicule the people who have tried to stand up for their beliefs in the courtroom in this regard. I say good for them. Here's a quote for you:

"Leave safety behind. Put your body on the line. Stand before the people you fear and speak your mind - even if your voice shakes. When you least expect it, someone may actually listen to what you have to say. Well-aimed slingshots can topple giants. And do your homework."
- Maggie Kuhn, founding member of the Gray Panthers.

Your appeal to authority holds no sway with me. If you are a lawyer, frankly I would not want you representing me. You make your case through intimidation and subterfuge, not facts or evidence. Save your wind for the courtroom. You will need all you can get.

[Sienna86]

90. Yay! You did good!

I would have wanted to do the same thing and hopefully would have done so. Thank you for speaking up and educating the other potential jurors.

[JayhawkSD]

92. Very noble, but you crucified the poor guy

You left no one on the jury who might be on his side. You made yourself feel good, and you left a jury which consisted entirely of people who thought the poor bastard should be locked up. Good work.

What you did was sanctimonious, self rightious, merciless, and pitiless. You vacated our system of justice and transformed it into a board of punishment instead.

If you really felt he shouldn't be locked up you should have stayed on the jury and worked to not have him locked up.

[librechik]

95. wrong, I don't feel so good about it. In fact it's pretty nauseating.

but as others have pointed out, that would have been perjury.

[SCantiGOP]

107. JayhawkSD :

Yours is one of the meaner, more non-constructive posts I've ever seen here. Not sure what you hoped to accomplish.

[annabanana]

125. reread the OP

The judge sighed. "Does anyone else in here have the same opinion?" About 20 people raised their hands. They had to ask all of them if they thought they wouldn't be able to give a fair decision based on the law. In the end, I was the only one excused for believing the cocaine laws are unfair to blacks and shouldn't be used to judge an offender.

[PasadenaTrudy]

93. Thank you for standing up!

My sister was a heroin addict way back in the 1970s and did prison time. She used, sold, stole from people...she should not have been incarcerated. She needed real help. I never get picked for juries because of my opinion on this type of thing.

[Cartoonist]

103. Been there

I was on trial for pot, not coke. There were a number of people who said they were in favor of jury nullification or just thought the laws were unfair. The DA dismissed them and I watched all my supporters walk out of the courtroom. It also works both ways. There were a number of law and order types my attorney dismissed.

[librechik]

151. yikes!

sorry bout that

I pray every day that I don't get involved with John Law. Then jury duty day comes around.

[rug]

106. Outstanding!

[Chalco]

110. You are a brave soul. nt

[alfredo]

111. I found the easiest way to be excused from the jury is to be completely, honest.

It also helps if you know a lot of lawyers. The prosecution doesn't like having friends of the defense lawyer on the jury.

[YarnAddict]

112. As a juror

it is your job to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant based on the evidence, and not to pass judgment on the rightness or wrongness of the law, or the judicial system, or anything else.

Good for you for stating that you couldn't do that!

I'm sure you saved the other jurors a lot of hassle.

[grasswire]

155. you are mistaken

It is the right of the juror to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. One of our bedrock principles that stands between the American citizen and tyranny.


www.fija.org

[Tsiyu]

115. You are awesome

Thank you for your courage.

K&R

[obxhead]

118. Fuck.

I adore your thinking and convictions, but you missed a REAL chance to save this man through jury nullification.

[bleedinglib]

121. 12 Angry Men !!

!2 angry men is an old flic made back in the 50's about how one man (Henry Fonda) swayed 11 of his peers too acquit a young man of murdering his father. He examined every shred of evidence & one by one changed their minds. The evidence seemed rock solid & the public defender did a piss poor job of defending the young man!!
I suppose today he would never make it too the jury room today?
Recently I had a friend charged with a weapons violation in his own home? the police arrested him & he spent several weeks in county jail. he couldn't afford an attorney, so he had too settle with the PD. After his arrignment the PD said she could get him off with 18 months!! well, we helped his wife raise the money for a private attorney & he was in court for about 5 minutes & had the charges dismissed!!
We have a private prison system in this state

[ncjustice80]

123. Should have kept your mouth shut, got on the jury, and aquitted the man.

[Hoppy]

126. Jury Nullification: Google it.

You did a great job.

[merrily]

127. Viva, librechik. Speak truth to power.

BTW, it sounds like the judge treated you pretty well.

When I was on jury duty, the judge lambasted (loudly) anyone who said they'd already formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants, two very young males accused of rape of a minor. I had formed an opinion and was dreading my turn. However, they got enough jurors and dismissed the rest of us before I got interviewed. Whew!

[TheKentuckian]

129. Good response but you must lie and nullify. Telling the truth and being forthright just leads to a

more regressive pool and feeds more folks into the soulless machine.

Got to be a gremlin sometimes to move the needle.

[vlyons]

130. It's called jury nullification

that's when the jury votes for acquittal based on an unjust law and/or an unjust penalty for conviction. Next time, keep silent during the jury selection process. If selected, once the jury retires to deliberate, that's when you inform the co-jurers about nullification.

[G_j]

131. thank you!

[Rhiannon12866]

132. K&R! Kudos!

Very well said! I applaud your courage in speaking out!

And an excellent reason we liberals should embrace jury duty.

[jtuck004]

133. I stayed and acquitted mine. Fuck 'em. n/r

[kag]

134. As a fellow Coloradan...

Thank you.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

136. Well done for having the integrity to make that clear.

I imagine it must have been tempting to stay and try to subvert the trial, but it would have been wrong to do so, and congratulations on not doing.

[duhneece]

138. Yay, I did the same, got excused

got the same gasp, but the judge didn't ask.
My partner just got jury notice and I told him that I half-wished that I had said nothing and 'did' jury nullification (same as what you did) if it was a drug case. He's debating what to do right now.

[unionthug777]

139. i like jury duty.

though, some cases can be.......difficult.

jury duty

[stuffmatters]

140. Occupy Juries... seems to be a good idea too on these cruel cases

[heaven05]

143. bravo

[babylonsister]

144. Wonderful!

[brewens]

147. I was on jury duty one time and completely forgot getting the notice. I could have gotten out

of it easily as I was scheduled for a knee replacement already. I got a call telling me I was supposed to be there and I live really close to the courthouse so was there in like five minutes. I'm hoping they don't pick me to come up for selection and then get to talk to whoever to get out of it for the rest of the month. No such luck. I end up there with a paddell answering questions.

It was a meth dealer case and I sat there giving the defendant and his lawyer my best cold death stare the entire time! Despite being liberal to the bone, I look like a big mean redneck from hell! It wasn't long before I was booted with no explanation. The dudes lawyer must have used one of his whatever you call it to get rid of me! I actually hated to do that. I was probably the best friend that kid could have sitting there. If there was even the slightest crack in their case against him, I would have been all over it.

I've been on a couple of juries and another was also a meth case. For Idaho, this other kid could not possibly had a better jury. I was amazed at how open minded everyone was. I mean this guy was freakin' lucky! The problem was the kid basically was running a clinic on what not to do if you are out on parole for another meth sentence! I still marvell at the stupidity!

So he's out on parole, something we were not directly informed of but we couldn't miss it. Testimony told us a parole officer was called to the scene of the bust. Anyone would assume it was likely meth he got nailed for before.

He had gotten into kind of a halfway house run by a local church for troubled kids (he was maybe 20). The pastor there is one of my oldest friends but we aren't all that close really. The kid was doing so well that they trusted him to drive other residents and bought a car for the purpose. They figured they would save on all the taxi fees.

At some point he hooked up with another old buddy user from his nearby home town and got back into meth. Then he turned the car into a mobile meth dealership. A narcotics officer spots him and his buddy in the parking lot of a cell phone shop with a girl leaning in the window and sees her walk off with something. Then he follows them to a bank branch a couple blocks way and a guy comes out and gets in the car. They drop that guy off at a grocery store a mile or so away. This is enough for the narc to call the regular cops to have this kid pulled over and searched.

In no time they have a dog, parole officer and other cops there and find the goods. A big bag of meth, user paraphanalia, empty bags and a set of scales in the trunk!

The kids lawyer actually did a good job for him. He even got the dog handler to admit that sometimes you get a false alert. They had real trouble finding the stash and he almost gave us cause to consider an illegal search. That cop was not skilled at testifying. They had to recall him to testify again the next day and walk that one back. If you could have created doubt on the distribution charge, his lawyer came as close as you could, but the scales sunk that.

We had to bust the kid. His lawyer flagged me down and interviewed me after the verdict. I told him he did a great job but WTF? How did that guy even think he had a chance? Talk about not even having anything to work with! Good guy that lawyer though. I'd recommend him in a heartbeat to anyone, if they didn't have big bucks to get the best in town at least. He earned his money.

[Dont call me Shirley]

148. An awesome deed you did!

[ZombieHorde]

153. Too bad you didn't stay quite and try to get on the jury.

You could have helped to decrease needless suffering for that man, and saved tax payers some money while you were at it.

I love your speech, and I understand jury duty can be very inconvenient, so I don't judge you, but you could have done a lot of good.

[grasswire]

154. nullification!

It is the right of the juror to judge the law as well as the facts of the case.

Fully Informed Jury Association -- fija.org

[lonestarnot]

160. Excellent move if you couldn't be seated and remain a holdout.

[woolldog]

163. I'm sure the Public Defender was very annoyed

with you.

You were her clients best shot at getting off.

[BruceW]

167. Not sure I agree with the original post

I was called for jury duty yesterday--consternation ensued
I was chosen with about 50 other people for the first jury selection. The crime was possession of "cocaine" and possession with intent to sell of "cocaine." The defendant was a little old black man whose OCD and misery were obvious.

The judge (asked who) he might need to disqualify and i raised my hand (..) and I said, "Your honor, It's my belief that the drug laws in this country are wrong, and the penalties fall unequally on minorities. I would be compelled to release this gentleman immediately, perhaps to a healthcare facility."

I am puzzled your text, librechik.

Some of my issues:

1- do you know what cocaine does to the body? IF intent to sell cocaine could be proved, it's a horrible offense. You do not know if he was innocent of that because you did not participate in the jury.

2- the statement "the penalties fall unequally on minorities." was needlessly introducing a racial element in the judgment. IRL, the penalties fall unequally on lower income groups, the race causality being much less than income. An educated and rich black guy is much, much less likely to sell cocaine than a poor uneducated white.

3- let's assume it was just possession, you reduced the defendant chances to get a lenient verdict because you know you would have displayed empathy, something not garanteed from the person who replaced you as juror.

The real underlying problem is the tendency to use bloated prisons as a substitute for a larger, possibly more costly, health care system.

3- the statement "the penalties fall unequally on minorities." was needlessly introducing a racial element in the judgment. IRL, the penalties fall unequally on lower income groups, the race causality being much less than income. An educated and rich black guy is much, much less likely to sell cocaine than a poor uneducated white.

[Enthusiast]

168. Way to go, librechik!

[RobinA]

171. I Would Have Gone

with nullification, but your way has the advantage of getting your opinion out in the open, which nullification really does not.

[Amimnoch]

172. My thoughts exactly. Nullification is a right, not a reason to recuse yourself.

Acquittal by nullification is both legal, and in my opinion a moral imperative that is all too often squished by the current legal system through often very shady tactics.

In a criminal case it should NEVER just be the accused that is on trial, but the very laws that placed the accused in the position in the first place and if those laws were just or not.

Unless the lawyers had point blank asked me about my opinion of the drug laws, I'd have felt no compunction to disclose that opinion.

[Thespian2]

173. Fantastic!

Drug wars and drug laws allow those in power to keep slavery alive in America. Drugs and Users should be treated as health concerns and be de-criminalized immediately.

[marble falls]

174. I hope I act like you did if I am ever in your situation.

[CaptainTruth]

175. Jury Nullification, all juries have that right.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/23929-jury-nullification-why-every-american-needs-to-learn-this-taboo-verdict

[FourScore]

176. You are a hero in my eyes. And I love that about 20 hands went up.

We're not alone!!!! Why don't the politicians on the left get that?

[leftyladyfrommo]

178. I did that one time

and I think the judge was really considering hitting me with a contempt of court.

It was a case where a teen had stolen a small motor bike. He was going to get 1 year in jail. And I said I just thought it was wrong for a kid to get serious jail time for stealing a bike. And I meant it.

I did not take into consideration that this kid may have stolen bikes in the past.

Anyway the judge did not like it.

[Baitball Blogger]

179. God bless you!

[DesertDiamond]

180. I agree with you, but I would have stayed and voted my conscience.

[Gothmog]

182. Great story

It is important to take a stand at times.

[B Calm]

183. BRAVO!!!!

[McCamy Taylor]

193. I had a similar experience. Plus, I am a physician.

During jury selection, they asked if I would have a problem sending a man to jail for buying cocaine from an undercover cop. I said "Yes, because I'm a doctor and in my opinion, drug abuse is a medical problem not a crime---" At which point the judge and prosecutor waved their arms wildly to silence me. I was later excused as were all the nurses, pharmacists and other medical persons in the jury pool. Should have kept my mouth shut. I figure they were trying to force him to become a snitch. He was lawyered up, too.

[branford]

194. Why would you be surprised that the defendant was represented by an attorney

during jury selection? Voir dire should not proceed without the presence of both prosecutor and defense counsel.

The prosecutor and judge were also likely annoyed because you're supposed to privately discuss any biases with counsel and the court, not share them with the whole jury pool. It's a common issue, and it's usually only a problem when other jurors see someone was excused and then try to copy their excuse. It's also not uncommon to dismiss medical and health professionals, particularly since the majority of matters in court are either civil personal injury cases or criminal matters with expert medical testimony.

Also, why would you regret answering the questions honestly?