Justice Often Served By Jury Nullification

[crimresearch]

Shut The F*** Up

Neither an answer to the question or a useful discussion... why am I not surprised?


OK...anyone else want to have a useful discussion on the flaws with the case?

To repeat, What should the jury have been allowed to consider?.

Although this was a federal case, where the restrictions are sometimes tighter, in terms of fundamental fairness, should the jury have been allowed to know that the defendant was acting legally under state law?

Or that he wasn't the usual drug defendant?

Should they have been allowed to deliberate on the disparity between the feds and the state?

 

[Bjorn]

The one day sentence will be appealed, it looks like:

Federal prosecutors who won a conviction against "ganja guru" and medical marijuana provider Ed Rosenthal, but lost the battle to send him to prison, were back in court July 3 seeking to appeal his slap-on-the-wrist one-day sentence plus probation.

Others .....

SAN DIEGO -- Medical marijuana activist Steve McWilliams took his own life Monday, July 11, 2005.

Friends said McWilliams might have killed himself because he was afraid of facing jail time. They said he told them he might not survive in jail.

McWilliams -- the victim of a motorcycle accident -- said he smoked marijuana to get pain relief and that prescription painkillers were not effective.

McWilliams was long regarded as something of a gadfly. He regularly showed up at City Council meetings to urge the local officials to implement the state law. His tenacity paid off in 2003, when San Diego became the largest city in the country to adopt medical marijuana guidelines.

McWilliams grew and delivered marijuana to sick and dying people.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled the federal government can prosecute seriously ill people who use pot.

Legal by California laws, busted by the FBI.

 

[Rob Lister]

Dude, just STFU.

Crim raises a valid point. The difficulties with jury nullification are based upon an answer which you specifically elimininated from consideration ("They broke the law" is not a valid answer"). But that is a valid consideration. It speaks to the need to change the law, not change the court system. The law applies to all and is not a gamble to any, the nullification system is a gamble to everyone.

 

[epepke]

The first US Chief Justice of the Supreme Court set the precedent that a jury had the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case.

 

[Luke T.]

Something fishy here.

The judge in the Ed Rosenthal trial doesn't allow evidence that Rosenthal was growing pot for the city. And then he is supposed to nullify the jury's verdict? The same judge?

Since this judge ended up virtually nullifying the verdict by sentencing Rosenthal to one day in jail and a thousand dollar fine, then there is a big chunk missing from this story.

Like, what does it mean when they say he was growing it for the city? Evidence, please.

Why was this evidence not allowed?

 

[Tony]

The article failed to disclose that little fact. It also failed to discuss the long and disgusting history of juries using the "nullification" powers to let the perpetrators of lynchings go free.

If I were you I'd do a lot more research before embracing nullification as a proper avenue to seek your desired result of marijunana legalization. Juries can "nullify" by refusing to convict people who kill small-time dealers, too.

Yes, I'm aware of those things. Jury nullification is a subject that comes up periodically on this forum, so I've read a lot about it from both perspectives.

 

[crimresearch]

The one day sentence will be appealed, it looks like:

Legal by California laws, busted by the FBI.

Which again, according to some folk's notion of justice, shouldn't be happening..once the prosecution gets a verdict, how many bites at the apple should they be allowed?

Taking juries and even judges out of the equation is wrong on so many levels, and is a predictable outcome of the slippery slope created by allowing the feds to come in where state laws won't...

 

[Luke T.]

Here, in Rosenthal's own words, are why he was arrested by federal agents:

ED ROSENTHAL: I was growing starter plants so that patients could grow their own marijuana, and the federal government came and arrested me at 6:00 a.m. I ran downstairs. I thought a neighbor might need help. I was naked. Luckily, that way they couldn't shoot me. I had nothing hidden. They saw everything. And they were looking for – and then they went over to my nursery, which was in a 1,500 square foot building; it was about 400 square feet of cultivation, and this was a big Oakland warehouse that they were talking about. And what they found there was mother plants and cuttings so that -- that were being rooted so that patients could use them.

I am unfamiliar with California law regarding medical marijuana. Does one have to get a license to grow your own marijuana for medical purposes? Was the growing starter plants for other people to take and grow on their own part of the city of Oakland's program that Rosenthal was supposedly a part of?

This could all simply be a matter of the federal government overruling state laws regarding drugs. What Rosenthal was doing might have been legal in his state, he might even been employed by a city to grow pot, but federal law trumped him.

Has the Supreme Court ruled on this kind of thing?

States rights. Here we go.

 

[Tony]

Crim raises a valid point. The difficulties with jury nullification are based upon an answer which you specifically elimininated from consideration ("They broke the law" is not a valid answer"). But that is a valid consideration.

I disagree. "They broke the law" is cop-out and complacence in the face of tyranny. The law on it’s own is irrelevant, what's relevant is the underlying issue of justice behind the law. Does the law serve justice and freedom? If not, I’d say the law needs to be scrapped.

It speaks to the need to change the law, not change the court system.

Change the court system?

The law applies to all and is not a gamble to any.

Not really, the law applies to those who obey it and those who get caught breaking it. It's a gamble to those who choose to live how they want against the dictates of the law.

 

[Luke T.]

Since Rosenthal was in a federal court for breaking a federal law, that may be why the jury was not allowed to hear about him growing pot for the city. It didn't matter if the city said it was okay, he was breaking federal law and this was a federal trial, so California law was moot and had no bearing on the case.

If a person is being accused of violation federal law, you have to determine if he was guilty of breaking the federal law. If the jury had said he was not guilty of breaking that federal law because he was growing it legally under California law, they would have been wrong to do so. Was he or was he not guilty of the crime for which he was accused? Yes.

 

[Manny]

Something fishy here.

The judge in the Ed Rosenthal trial doesn't allow evidence that Rosenthal was growing pot for the city. And then he is supposed to nullify the jury's verdict? The same judge?

Since this judge ended up virtually nullifying the verdict by sentencing Rosenthal to one day in jail and a thousand dollar fine, then there is a big chunk missing from this story.

It was something of a test case to establish the federal governent's jurisdiction to prosecute marijuana crimes even where states had legalized it for medical purposes. Mr. Rosenthal was the guy in charge of growing marijuana for Oakland's dispensary. The judge reduced the sentence for precisely the reason that it was a test case. The precedent now set, future defendants ought not expect similar leniency.

I'm not certain why the medical use couldn't be mentioned, but I'd WAG that the reason is that it would confuse the jury. If something is illegal under federal law (and growing marijuana, even for medical purposes is) than it's not relevant that it's legal under state law during a federal trial. Similarly, if someone were deputized by the state to go cull a population of runway migratory birds near a runway, it would not be relevant in a federal trial for killing the birds in violation of federal law. If the conflict is to be fought out judicially, the right arena in which to do it is in the appelate courts, not at the trial level.

 

[Rob Lister]

I disagree. "They broke the law" is cop-out and complacence in the face of tyranny. The law on it’s own is irrelevant, what's relevant is the underlying issue of justice behind the law. Does the law serve justice and freedom? If not, I’d say the law needs to be scrapped.



Change the court system?



Not really, the law applies to those who obey it and those who get caught. It's a gamble to those who choose to live how they want against the dictates of the law.

You're either confused by my post or too close to the subject to be objective. I'll assume the former. Some laws need to be scrapped but jury nullification is not the best way, or even a good way, of going about that because it is not efficient and the law can remain [active] and on the books regardless. Some that are caught get the jury to nullify, some don't. That ain't right.

The court system may need to change but allowing jury nullification is not the right way to go about it. Better to change the underlying laws that might prompt a reasonable jury to nullify in the first place.

The law applies to all, regardless of whether or not they break it or get caught. The court system only applies to those that get caught. You've touched upon my point. Now pick it up and stare it straight in its face.

 

[Luke T.]

I'm not certain why the medical use couldn't be mentioned, but I'd WAG that the reason is that it would confuse the jury. If something is illegal under federal law (and growing marijuana, even for medical purposes is) than it's not relevant that it's legal under state law during a federal trial.

Exactly. You must have been writing this while I was posting my last post.

 

[Manny]

Yes, I'm aware of those things. Jury nullification is a subject that comes up periodically on this forum, so I've read a lot about it from both perspectives.

And are you:

a) In favor of jury nullification;

b) In favor of jury nullification when the jury agrees with your worldview but not when it does not;

c) Something else. If c), what else? You have yet to actually make an argument in this thread of what you are for, except presumably for legalization of marijuana. Is this a pot thread or a nullification thread or what?

 

[Tony]

And are you:

a) In favor of jury nullification;

b) In favor of jury nullification when the jury agrees with your worldview but not when it does not;

c) Something else. If c), what else? You have yet to actually make an argument in this thread of what you are for, except presumably for legalization of marijuana. Is this a pot thread or a nullification thread or what?

A.

However, I'd definitely hate it if jury nullification were used to acquit someone who had murdered or raped.

But I hate it more when innocent people get sent to prison for BS laws or standing up for freedom.

 

[Tony]

You're either confused by my post or too close to the subject to be objective. I'll assume the former. Some laws need to be scrapped but jury nullification is not the best way, or even a good way, of going about that because it is not efficient and the law can remain [active] and on the books regardless. Some that are caught get the jury to nullify, some don't. That ain't right.

But with jury nullification, not all will end up in prison. And yes, I know laws won't be scrapped with jury nullification. That's a very important, but secondary consideration (atleast in this context). What I'm concerned about is the person who is on trial right now. Scrapping the law is something that happens on another level further down (or up) the line.

The court system may need to change but allowing jury nullification is not the right way to go about it. Better to change the underlying laws that might prompt a reasonable jury to nullify in the first place.

Better? yes. Quicker, easier, and more in the interests of those facing the laws right now? No

The law applies to all, regardless of whether or not they break it or get caught. The court system only applies to those that get caught. You've touched upon my point. Now pick it up and stare it straight in its face.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I know people who've been smoking marijuana on and off since they were 15 and have never been caught. For all intents and purposes, the law doesn't apply to them.

 

[Luke T.]

But I hate it more when innocent people get sent to prison for BS laws or standing up for freedom.

Rosenthal is a political prisoner!

One problem with Rosenthal's situation and the federal laws on marijuana is that jury nullification doesn't solve the problem. Another problem is that one man is making the decision to overrule the law of the land. You see this as "justice" because you happen to agree with that one man's decision.

If a law is unjust, then the law needs to be nullified at the voting booth. In this case, the federal voting booth.

 

[Tony]

If a law is unjust, then the law needs to be nullified at the voting booth. In this case, the federal voting booth.

That doesn't work in a fundamentally broken system.

Another problem is that one man is making the decision to overrule the law of the land.

Why is that a problem?

 

[Manny]

A.

However, I'd definitely hate it if jury nullification were used to acquit someone who had murdered or raped.

But surely you understand that the risk of that is the nature of the beast with jury nullification.

It's an absolute power, absent revoking double jeopardy (which I'm sure you oppose). There's literally nothing that can be done about a poor jury decision. So either you set up the judiciary to discourage the practice or you don't. By the very nature of the thing it's completely unrealistic to expect the government to notify a jury of its nullification powers in cases where their doing so would be adverse to the interests of the government itself and not in other instances.

So aren't you right back to wanting to fighting at the legislature? Why not skip the dangerous step of encouraging juries to ignore unjust laws and just try to convince a majority of the people to elect legislators who will repeal those laws?

 

[Bjorn]

In a case that threw the harsh glare of the national and international media spotlight on the Bush administration's aggressive attack on medical marijuana, Rosenthal was arrested in February 2002 as he oversaw the production of medical marijuana in Oakland. Rosenthal was acting in accordance with California state law and had been deputized by the city of Oakland to grow medical marijuana.

How come the city of Oakland was not tried in court?