skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Democracy in action?
Source:
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 weren’t 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 Cornell’s 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...
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 don’t know if we can seat a jury,’ ” said Deschamps, who called a recess. And he didn’t. During the recess, Paul and defense attorney Martin Elison worked out a plea agreement.
(Hat Tip:
The Daily Dish)
1 comment:
Now this is an interesting situation. "No way would they convict..." I, like most of these potential jurors, of course think it's absurd that marijuana possession, especially less than an ounce is illegal. However, I understand that the duty of the juror is to weigh the facts and convict or not based on the facts and the existing law. These jurors should be lobbying for legislative change, but the reality is they won't. And once again, because of our apathetic society and a legislative system designed to make change nearly impossible, but at the least laborious, our laws will continue to reflect the opposite of what many believe. Will of the people, what?
Post a Comment