Missoula Jury

[catbooster]

I looked around, and didn't see this posted yet. Seems it's hard to put a jury together in Missoula if the charge is for a small amount of pot.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/articl ... 03286.html

[GrizinWashington]

No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.

Good for them. It's about time SOMEONE got sensible about these cases.

[SonomaCat]

I assume this sort of thing happened from time to time during prohibition when somebody was brought up on charges of possession of whiskey as well.

[BigBruceBaker]

I find this pretty ridiculous. It is not up to the Jury to say a law isn't right. They need to follow the letter of the law then be proactive in the community and try to change the law if they don't agree with it.

[GrizinWashington]

It is not up to the Jury to say a law isn't right.

It's up to a jury to determine if a crime was committed. In this case, the jury panel was apparently saying, "Don't even bother with a trial 'cause we ain't gonna convict someone who had 1/16th of an ounce of weed in his possession". Frankly, to me, that seems very reasonable. They saved taxpayers a bunch of money by not having the State try a person they could never convict.

[Grizlaw]

The question of what role, if any, jury nullification should play in our legal system has been going on ever since our country was founded. BAC correctly provided one example; the fact that juries routinely nullified anti-alcohol laws during Prohibition is often cited as a primary reason why it was repealed. There've been many other examples throughout our history (i.e., juries refusing to convict people during the Civil War era for various slave-related crimes; juries refusing to convict abortion clinic bombers, etc.)

It all comes down to what you believe the jury's role in our judicial process should be. On one side of the debate is the view that the jury's sole job should be to decide the facts of the case, and that the application of the law to those facts should be left to judges. On the other side of the debate is the view that juries should have the discretion not to convict a defendant pursuant to a statute that they simply disagree with, regardless of whether the defendant's actions fall within the bounds of a particular criminal statute.

I can see the merits in both of these arguments. I have discussed issues similar to this one on this board before, so some of you can probably guess where I come out on the issue: I am a believer in process, and accordingly, my view is that juries should apply the law as it exists, not as they think it should exist. Our political and legal systems have certain processes in place; those processes are designed in a way that often results in social change taking a lot more time than many people would like, and I understand that that can be frustrating. However, those processes exist for good and valid reasons, and I don't think short-circuiting them whenever it suits us is a good practice. If the law is to be changed, it should be done pursuant to the proper process (as opposed to a de facto change simply because juries won't apply the law as it exists).

[Toucat]

I find this pretty ridiculous. It is not up to the Jury to say a law isn't right. They need to follow the letter of the law then be proactive in the community and try to change the law if they don't agree with it.

Right after the article came out the Missoulian published a couple of very interesting letters to the editor with regard to it. One was by Gary Marbut, head of the Montana Shooting Sports Assocation, and from previous articles by or about him, apparently a staunch consevative. I found it very interesting to find that he completely agreed with the jury nullification, even though it addressed a liberal issue.

[SonomaCat]

Yeah, I think the whole jury nullification "movement" has been largely a "conservative" (that term is defined so many different ways that I can't use it without quotes) thing for quite some time.

Interestingly, the "gun nuts" and the "potheads" seem to be joined at the hip on more and more arguments lately ... especially in terms of commerce clause vs. state's rights.

[BigBruceBaker]

I find this pretty ridiculous. It is not up to the Jury to say a law isn't right. They need to follow the letter of the law then be proactive in the community and try to change the law if they don't agree with it.

Right after the article came out the Missoulian published a couple of very interesting letters to the editor with regard to it. One was by Gary Marbut, head of the Montana Shooting Sports Assocation, and from previous articles by or about him, apparently a staunch consevative. I found it very interesting to find that he completely agreed with the jury nullification, even though it addressed a liberal issue.

Definitely interesting. To me I still don't agree with it. IMO they should start petitioning senators and things like that. The law is there for a reason and whether or not it should be repealed should be talked about with congress. I don't think the weed is just a liberal issue as I know quite a few pretty conservative people that don't mind it as they see it as basically a substitute for alcohol. For the record I wouldn't feel right about a Jury doing this from anything from theft to murder. Would it be OK if there was a situation of a father or mother that had to steal money to feed their family and even though they had a weapon the Jury said because you were trying to feed your children we won't convict? I realize its not even close to the same situation just something to think about.

[Toucat]

I can never remember how to post links, so I just copied Marbut's letter with his view:

Those who find the story about the Missoula jury revolt (Dec. 19) to be unusual just don't understand how much an honorable tradition such an action is with juries.

One shining historical example is the many Northern juries before the Civil War that refused to convict citizens accused of violating the federal Fugitive Slave Act. That federal law made it a serious crime to assist a slave running to freedom.

In those days, it was a part of usual civics lessons for citizens to learn that a juror may vote to acquit if the juror believes the law being applied is being used incorrectly, or is an improper law. It has always been an intended function of juries that they express the culture and conscience of the community, as this Missoula jury pool did.

It is common for a trial judge to instruct the jury that the judge and only the judge will decide matters of law, and the jury may only consider matters of fact. History tells us that this is wrong, even if coming from a judge. A juror may vote to acquit an accused person for any reason at all - any reason the juror deems sufficient. The juror cannot be required to explain a vote to acquit.

Thus, it is with this undeniable and irreversible power of jurors to vote to acquit that jurors may express the conscience of the community from which they are drawn, and by that action prevent the enforcement of unpopular or unjust laws.

Gary Marbut, president, Montana Shooting Sports Association, Missoula