Posted on 12/22/2010 8:01:24 PM PST by Notary Sojac
A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week.
Jurors well, potential jurors staged a revolt.
They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they werent about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornells home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.
No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.
In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.
District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll as to who might agree. Of the 27 potential jurors before him, maybe five raised their hands. A couple of others had already been excused because of their philosophical objections.
I thought, Geez, I dont know if we can seat a jury, said Deschamps, who called a recess.
And he didnt.
During the recess, Paul and defense attorney Martin Elison worked out a plea agreement. That was on Thursday.
On Friday, Cornell entered an Alford plea, in which he didnt admit guilt. He briefly held his infant daughter in his manacled hands, and walked smiling out of the courtroom.
Public opinion, as revealed by the reaction of a substantial portion of the members of the jury called to try the charges on Dec. 16, 2010, is not supportive of the states marijuana law and appeared to prevent any conviction from being obtained simply because an unbiased jury did not appear available under any circumstances, according to the plea memorandum filed by his attorney.
A mutiny, said Paul.
Bizarre, the defense attorney called it.
In his nearly 30 years as a prosecutor and judge, Deschamps said hes never seen anything like it.
*****
I think thats outstanding, John Masterson, who heads Montana NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), said when told of the incident. The American populace over the last 10 years or so has begun to believe in a majority that assigning criminal penalties for the personal possession of marijuana is an unjust and a stupid use of government resources.
Masterson is hardly an unbiased source.
On the other hand, prosecutor, defense attorney and judge all took note that some of the potential jurors expressed that same opinion.
I think its going to become increasingly difficult to seat a jury in marijuana cases, at least the ones involving a small amount, Deschamps said.
The attorneys and the judge all noted Missoula Countys approval in 2006 of Initiative 2, which required law enforcement to treat marijuana crimes as their lowest priority and also of the 2004 approval of a statewide medical marijuana ballot initiative.
And all three noticed the age of the members of the jury pool who objected. A couple looked to be in their 20s. A couple in their 40s. But one of the most vocal was in her 60s.
Its kind of a reflection of society as a whole on the issue, said Deschamps.
Which begs a question, he said.
Given the fact that marijuana use became widespread in the 1960s, most of those early users are now in late middle age and fast approaching elderly.
Is it fair, Deschamps wondered, in such cases to insist upon impaneling a jury of hardliners who object to all drug use, including marijuana?
I think that poses a real challenge in proceeding, he said. Are we really seating a jury of their peers if we just leave people on who are militant on the subject?
Although the potential jurors in the Cornell case quickly focused on the small amount of marijuana involved, the original allegations were more serious that Cornell was dealing; hence, a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
Because the case never went to trial, members of the jury pool didnt know that Cornells 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 theyd 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 couldnt know about Cornells 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 hes 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, Im not convinced in any way that you dont present an ongoing threat to the community.
Deschamps also pronounced himself appalled at Cornells personal life, saying: Youve got no education, youve got no skills. Your lifes 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 Fridays sentencing, was in the courtroom for Fridays 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. Hell get credit for the 200 days hes 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 wouldnt have gone this far through the court system except for the felony charge involved.
But the small detail in this case may end up being a big game-changer in future cases.
The reaction of potential jurors in this case, Paul said, is going to be something were going to have to consider.
The Montana Constitution does not depend on Opium dens, crack houses, prostitution, porn, and abortion, contrary to what liberal/libertarians think.
“Libertarian” lefties will create Californias everywhere if they are allowed to.
The last time I was in California (2007) you could scarcely walk a block without seeing those zoned out Chinamen all over the place.
Since FR is a pro-God, social conservative forum, it is more than a small group of freepers that are not liberal/libertarians. Neither one of you believes that you have mass support here for the homosexual agenda, legalizing drug use/sales, abortion, etc.
Surely you don’t think that drug pushers, and dopers are limited to “chinamen” as you call them.
He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle and herb for the service of man (Psalm 104:14-15)
(Jesus:) "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matt. 15:11)
Who said anything about what the Montana constitution depends upon, which does not depend upon a police state locking everyone up who offends you, in any case.
You are an atheist, skip the lessons on Christianity.
Do you accept the bible on other issues such as homosexuality?
As far as homosexuality goes, I am not a party-line Libertarian.... I'd vote against homosexual marriage and against homosexuals serving openly in the military if it were on my ballot. But I draw the line at any attempt to re-criminalize sexual acts in private between consenting adults.
In the big "homosexual agenda thread" over the weekend, God's name was used extensively...
"It's not me who hates these unrepentant fags, it's God".
"Sodomy is an abomination to God, and that's all I need to know about the issue."
Well, maybe. But when you look at the advance of the homosexual cause over the last half a century, it's hard not to think that God is saying, "I believe I'll just sit this one out. You Freepers are going to have to do all th' heavy lifting, OK??"
Western states like California, Oregon, Washington have always been libertarian, not conservative, that is why they were in time, absorbed by the left.
Many Southern and western states like Texas have always been conservative, that is why they have managed to best resist the leftwing/libertarian gains of the last 60 years, and in many ways managed to roll back some of them and even move right.
The tiny, pure white, western states that counted their population by the thousands, have managed to have a good thing, but now as post 2 shows, the world is moving in, and as this case shows, Californiafication is already taking hold unless it is resisted by the conservatives in those states.
Montana can adopt this new leftwing agenda that is coming there for the welfare and to make a living in the drug/crime culture, and have OJ Simpson juries, or they can try and fight.
Touray Cornell is a problem, not a symbol of freedom and preserving traditional America.
We freepers will advance conservatism, you will advance liberalism.
Unlike your oft-repeated, and rather tired, post about the official Libertarian party (which no libertarian I know supports), most libertarians don’t ‘support’ abortion, the homosexual agenda, open borders, etc. Quite the opposite. So your little silly game of equating libertarians with liberals by dint of sharing a few letters falls flat. The root word of libertarian is liberty, not liberal. Liberty, a concept of which you have seem to have no clue as to what it means.
Libertarians don’t believe the government had the power to make certain things illegal without a Constitutional amendment, like they had to do with booze. Banning things falls outside of the enumerated powers.
And before you go all Mojave and start accusing me of being a pothead, I have never ingested any controlled substance without a proper prescription, and as little of those as I could. Even if they did make the stuff legal tomorrow, I wouldn’t partake. Not interested in it.
But neither am I going to tell another adult they can’t partake because I personally disapprove of taking drugs, and I won’t demand the State imprison them for offending my sensibilities. That is the difference between me and you.
We are pig rasslin, MI Dude. I’m climbin outta the sty. I oughta know better........
Merry Christmas, FRiend.
And to you and yours.
The most successful libertarian candidate ever for President, was running against Reagan, and he described libertarians as "low tax, liberals", that is what destroyed California.
If Montana embraces the social liberal, pro-drugs, jury nullification world view of Touray Cornell and the radical left, then Montana will be a hell hole within a relatively short time.
The rot has already started, as we can see.
The judge should have dismissed the jury pool and started with a new one.
Such things should not be felonies, but someone who has committed eight serious crimes has shown they cannot live in society and should no longer be given the chance ever again.
Hey, I’m not arguing that this guy is a choir boy. But in America, the prosecutor doesn’t get two bites at the same apple. If you file charges for only possession of a tiny pinch of pot, and the jury nullifies, you don’t get to say “But...but, how about all that stuff he did in the past?”
Seems to me that if the prosecutor had confined the case to the dealing charge, the potential jurors might have reacted differently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.