The people have spoken. Case dismissed.
Sounds like Jury Nullification
I wonder how long until our political “Betters” decide that jury trials are no longer in their best interests, and substitute tribunals in their place?
“Seems like the West is returning more to its cowboy-like libertarian ways lately.”
“Because the case never went to trial, members of the jury pool didn’t know that Cornell’s neighbors had complained to police that he was dealing from his South 10th Street West four-plex, according to an affidavit in the case. After one neighbor reported witnessing an alleged transaction between Cornell and two people in a vehicle, marijuana was found in the vehicle in question.
The driver and passenger said they’d bought it from Cornell, the affidavit said. A subsequent search of his home turned up some burnt marijuana cigarettes, a pipe and some residue, as well as a shoulder holster for a handgun and 9mm ammunition. As a convicted felon, Cornell was prohibited from having firearms, the affidavit noted.
Cornell admitted distributing small amounts of marijuana and “referred to himself as a person who connected other dealers with customers,” it said. “He claimed his payment for arranging deals was usually a small amount of marijuana for himself.”
Potential jurors also couldn’t know about Cornell’s criminal history, which included eight felonies, most of them in and around Chicago several years ago. According to papers filed in connection with the plea agreement, Cornell said he moved to Missoula to “escape the criminal lifestyle he was leading,” but he’s had a number of brushes with the law here.
Those include misdemeanor convictions for driving while under the influence and driving with a suspended license, and a felony conviction in August of conspiracy to commit theft, involving an alleged plot last year to stage a theft at a business where a friend worked, the papers said. He was out on bail in that case when the drug charges were filed.
In sentencing him Friday, Deschamps referred to him as “an eight-time loser” and said, “I’m not convinced in any way that you don’t present an ongoing threat to the community.”
Deschamps also pronounced himself “appalled” at Cornell’s personal life, saying: “You’ve got no education, you’ve got no skills. Your life’s work seems to be going out and impregnating women and not supporting your children.”
The mother of one of those children, a 3-month-old named Joy who slept through Friday’s sentencing, was in the courtroom for Friday’s sentencing. Cornell sought and received permission to hug his daughter before heading back to jail.
Deschamps sentenced Cornell to 20 years, with 19 suspended, under Department of Corrections supervision, to run concurrently with his sentence in the theft case. He’ll get credit for the 200 days he’s already served. The judge also ordered Cornell to get a GED degree upon his release.
“Instead of being a lazy bum, you need to get an education so you can get a decent law-abiding job and start supporting your family,” he said.
Normally, Paul said after the sentencing, a case involving such a small amount of marijuana wouldn’t have gone this far through the court system except for the felony charge involved.”
As a rule of thumb, if you are ever given jury duty, never admit to familiarity with jury nullification. Under typical circumstances, attorneys and judges will exclude you from a jury if you so much as mention it.
If, and it’s a big if, you wish to use your authority and responsibility of jury nullification, by voting “not guilty”, and are asked by other jurors why you did so, you should still *not* use the phrase “jury nullification”, or it may be used to relieve you of jury duty and replace you with an alternate juror. (The excuse will be that you have instructed other jurors about a matter of law, which is forbidden, as you are not an officer of the court.)
Instead, while being honest, you can state that you believe the law is inappropriate, or that it is being applied incorrectly or injudiciously. Which, in effect, are the *rationales* of jury nullification. And, importantly, as such, they are not adequate from dismissing you from the jury.
That is, you can practice but you cannot preach.
Ironically, even among the firmest of believers in the principal of jury nullification, the vast majority of the time it will never be an issue, because not only is the defendant guilty as blue blazes, but guilty of violating a real and important law, and you truly believe that they should spend a long, long time in prison.
And if one other person on the jury wants to find them “not guilty”, you will think they have lost their mind.
With a 16th of an ounce of pot, he may as well of had 22 tons of meth, a hundred pounds of Plutonium and a dozen dead bodies in his trunk!
Don’t you understand, the we are in a Drug War and we are just about to win the Drug War! /satire
I call it Jury Nullification. It has a long, and mostly proud history, in overturning unjust laws. It is saying to the state "No, I will not enforce a bad law."
In the words of Paul Newman’s character speaking to the jury, in “The Verdict”: Today you’re the law.
Words to live by.
The way the early part of the article is written, or how your excerpt lays it out, the casual reader would think that “mere” possession of a tiny amount of marijuana was the only evidence from which prosecutors sought a conviction, for either selling or intent to sell marijuana.
Yet, the full reading of the circumstances shows that the larger body of evidence demonstrates the criminal behavior and the tiny amount of marijuana only acts in support of the larger body of evidence.
Read correctly by a jury that was presented the case properly, a conviction was in order no matter the size of the quantity found in the perp’s possession at the time - the crime - selling or intent to sell - was clear, regardless of that amount.
The prosecutors should seek a new trial.
It never takes long for the Drug Warriors (Armchair Division) to show up.