A legal hypothetical

[Preacher]

Alternately, "how to royally piss off a judge".

I've chosen to participate in jury duty. Unfortunately nothing came of it as it was dismissed. Yet I've come up with a hypothetical example and I'm rather curious as to how it would play out.

Let's say you're called into jury duty and you manage to extract from a judge that the accused has been charged with offenses related to cannabis. You then present this to that judge: "I am radically for the legalization of cannabis, and fully aware of my rights as a juror. You have one of two choices. If I am accepted into this jury, I WILL either persuade the jury to use nullification to acquit the accused, or deadlock it. If I am rejected, I will spend all of my time necessary to organize on the steps of the county courthouse and inform all of the jury pool their rights as well as plead that they use nullification to acquit."

A courthouse is the most hallowed ground for free speech, and this approach is fully legal. I should know; I showed up at a Tea Party this year organized at that site with a (the) poster railing against conservatives with no consequence. I also know that whatever affiliation judges and law enforcement may be (even Libertarian), they pretty much unanimously hate the idea of jury nullification. I'm wondering what would realistically arise from using such a hypothetical- nothing, bullshit charges in order to censor me, no charges and release after the 24 hour arraignment period has passed, etc.

What do you think? I'd imagine if you lack an excellent lawyer the county would try to railroad anyone standing up for their rights, otherwise who knows.

 

[David762]

Stealth mode might be better, imho.

Stealth mode might be better, imho.

I wouldn't lie during jury selection and screening, but I would be inclined to publicly minimize or moderate my position regarding cannabis. The point is, which position would have the greater long term impact legally, telling off the judge that you are an ardent supporter of cannabis re-legalization and being deselected from the jury pool, or minimizing the extent of my ardor, serving on that jury, and then acquitting the defendant? IMHO, the latter.

Imagine if each and every cannabis defendant opted for a jury trial (most plea out instead), overload the judicial system to reflect the real number of cannabis arrests, make the jurisdiction expend vast sums of money on prosecution before a jury, and then 9 of 10 or 99 of 100 being either declared innocent outright, or else deadlock the jury. The DA, the judges, and even the LEOs would eventually refrain from prosecuting, perhaps even not arresting, cannabis "criminals". The end result would effectively be decriminalization, a really good thing.

YMMV, depending upon jurisdiction.

Alternately, "how to royally piss off a judge".

I've chosen to participate in jury duty. Unfortunately nothing came of it as it was dismissed. Yet I've come up with a hypothetical example and I'm rather curious as to how it would play out.

Let's say you're called into jury duty and you manage to extract from a judge that the accused has been charged with offenses related to cannabis. You then present this to that judge: "I am radically for the legalization of cannabis, and fully aware of my rights as a juror. You have one of two choices. If I am accepted into this jury, I WILL either persuade the jury to use nullification to acquit the accused, or deadlock it. If I am rejected, I will spend all of my time necessary to organize on the steps of the county courthouse and inform all of the jury pool their rights as well as plead that they use nullification to acquit."

A courthouse is the most hallowed ground for free speech, and this approach is fully legal. I should know; I showed up at a Tea Party this year organized at that site with a (the) poster railing against conservatives with no consequence. I also know that whatever affiliation judges and law enforcement may be (even Libertarian), they pretty much unanimously hate the idea of jury nullification. I'm wondering what would realistically arise from using such a hypothetical- nothing, bullshit charges in order to censor me, no charges and release after the 24 hour arraignment period has passed, etc.

What do you think? I'd imagine if you lack an excellent lawyer the county would try to railroad anyone standing up for their rights, otherwise who knows.

 

[Goodkarma]

I used to get jury summons all the time, until about 20 years ago.

I wrote on the last summons that I ever got "I have never seen a police or prosecution witness tell the truth in a courtroom" and mailed it back......


Yeah, that is the end of my story.

 

[LovableHuggable]

Never state your intentions before time to act.

 

[diggdugg]

If a judge finds out that a juror is talking about nullification, he has the authority and will remove the juror from the jury and or call a mistrial and start over. You have to convince the other jurors that the law itself is immoral. Deliver the decision to the judge and watch his head explode.

 

[Tony Aroma]

I wouldn't lie during jury selection and screening, but I would be inclined to publicly minimize or moderate my position regarding cannabis.

What he said.

What's the point of spouting off to a judge or prosecutor about your personal beliefs? You won't be on the jury, and you will have accomplished nothing. Unless your goal is to get out of jury duty.

If you really want to do something, keep your mouth shut, get on the jury, then vote not guilty. At the very least, you will be making a difference to the defendant. And if you want to make your point, you can later explain that your vote was not based on the facts of the case, but was against an unjust law. In other words, you exercised your rights as a juror. Which you can't do if you don't get on the jury.

And you are perfectly within your rights to walk around outside a courthouse with information about jury nullification. But, as I understand it, the information must be general. You are not allowed to try to influence jurors with respect to a particular case. So, for example, you could carry a sign that says "Jury Nullification Can Help Change Unjust Laws." But you could NOT carry a sign that said "Use Jury Nullification to Acquit Marc Emery."

 

[GMT]

A swift contemp of court charge against you and jail time.

 

[Tony Aroma]

A swift contemp of court charge against you and jail time.

That can only happen if someone mentions jury nullification during a trial. Then you are correct and, additionally, it will be declared a mis-trial. The defense is not allowed to inform the jury that it is an option and their right.

But they can do nothing to a juror for voting his/her conscience. Jurors are protected. After the verdict is in and the trial is over, a juror can say what they want without fear of reprisal. Nothing can be done if they say they voted based on the unjustness of the law and not on the facts of the case.

 

[GMT]

Hi Tony, its my understanding that while a defense lawyer cannot mention jury nullification, a defendant defending themselves can. Do you know if that's accurate?

 

[VIKINGtrich]

yeah fuck the Judge, stay on the jury and free the poor dude that was arrested for a plant...

 

[Tony Aroma]

Hi Tony, its my understanding that while a defense lawyer cannot mention jury nullification, a defendant defending themselves can. Do you know if that's accurate?

Don't know. I'm no lawyer or legal scholar. From what I've read, it sounded to me like if those words (jury nullification) were said during a trial that it was an automatic mis-trial. I don't know if it matters who says them.

 

[GMT]

cool, the solutions simple then, if you get charged, defend yourself and keep saying nullification, stay out on bail for ever lol.

 

[Yes4Prop215]

if you want it to work you gotta keep your intentions quiet. if you say anything like "i am for the legalization of marijuana" they are probably not going to select you to the jury. keep quiet, and then at the last second during deliberations bring up your points and try to persuade the jury.

 

[stratmandu]

Got called in to the jury pool for a week. Sitting around. Second day they called my name for a trial (meth possession). During selection they asked if anyone had ever been arrested for drugs. I raised my hand (misdemeanor mj poss over 10 years before when a minor). One thing led to another and I informed them that I considered any person in jail for possession to be a political prisoner, and I had no intentions of sending anyone to jail for possesion of ANYTHING. "This juror is excused; you may leave, sir".

Never been called for JD since and do not expect to be. Works for me.