Family Being Prosecuted For Pots of Marijuana

[mugofbeer]

HVAC - if the law says possession of pot is against the law, why would you, as a jury member find the accused NOT guilty? The law says possession is against the law. If you don't like the law, change it. Its being done all over the country so it's possible to do it.

[Caboose]

HVAC - if the law says possession of pot is against the law, why would you, as a jury member find the accused NOT guilty? The law says possession is against the law. If you don't like the law, change it. Its being done all over the country so it's possible to do it.

Jurors have the right to judge the validity and the fairness of the law itself. Many would argue that they are expected to.

[positano]

Caboose - I respectfully disagree. In fact, jurors are typically instructed in both State and Federal court to the contrary. Jurors are finders of fact - judges rule on the law. Jurors are duty-bound to follow the law.

I'm not so naive to overlook the fact that jurors often reach a compromise in the jury room, often associated with varying degrees of jury nullification theory. It happens. That is not, however, a "right" of a juror and in fact, in direct conflict with every juror's oath to "follow the law".

[PennyQuilts]

Caboose - I respectfully disagree. In fact, jurors are typically instructed in both State and Federal court to the contrary. Jurors are finders of fact - judges rule on the law. Jurors are duty-bound to follow the law.

I'm not so naive to overlook the fact that jurors often reach a compromise in the jury room, often associated with varying degrees of jury nullification theory. It happens. That is not, however, a "right" of a juror and in fact, in direct conflict with every juror's oath to "follow the law".

What Positano said.

[Caboose]

Caboose - I respectfully disagree. In fact, jurors are typically instructed in both State and Federal court to the contrary. Jurors are finders of fact - judges rule on the law. Jurors are duty-bound to follow the law.

I'm not so naive to overlook the fact that jurors often reach a compromise in the jury room, often associated with varying degrees of jury nullification theory. It happens. That is not, however, a "right" of a juror and in fact, in direct conflict with every juror's oath to "follow the law".

Despite the fact that modern judges look upon jury nullification negatively and take preventative measures, it does not mean that mean it is not a power (I should have used the word "power", not "right") of a jury.

The practice of jury nullification was intended by our founding fathers, but it has been eroded over the years.

[mugofbeer]

Caboose - I totally disagree with you. Jurors are asked to judge the case on the facts. Not whether or not the law is fair. If you have a case where someone is charged with 1st degree murder and the facts of the case make it so distasteful as to convict him if 1st degree, a jury can ask that the charges be reduced or they find him not guilty based on the FACTS. Laws are there for a reason and if we just start picking and choosing which ones are OK to break and which ones aren't then we are doomed to sink into anarchy. Your idea of what is acceptible and mine differ on this one issue, think about if this were the case across the spectrum of citizens and the spectrum of laws. Laws that are no longer valid or acceptible as written should be changed, not disregarded.

[Caboose]

Caboose - I totally disagree with you. Jurors are asked to judge the case on the facts. Not whether or not the law is fair. If you have a case where someone is charged with 1st degree murder and the facts of the case make it so distasteful as to convict him if 1st degree, a jury can ask that the charges be reduced or they find him not guilty based on the FACTS. Laws are there for a reason and if we just start picking and choosing which ones are OK to break and which ones aren't then we are doomed to sink into anarchy. Your idea of what is acceptible and mine differ on this one issue, think about if this were the case across the spectrum of citizens and the spectrum of laws. Laws that are no longer valid or acceptible as written should be changed, not disregarded.

I know what they are ASKED to do, that doesn't mean they don't have the power to do otherwise.

"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy" - First Chief Justice of the US John Jay

There are activist groups currently trying to keep judges from burying jurors power of jury nullification.

[possumfritter]

Midtowner,

I don't always agree with everything you comment on, but that (#25) was a very good post.

I hope all went well for you on the Bar exam. When will you get the results?

Might we all expect a big celebration when you get the results?

[Midtowner]

Whether or not there's a celebration will depend entirely on the results.

[positano]

Consider this scenario:

Using the set of facts described in the thread (family appears to be gainfully employed, law-abiding members of a local community, without a terribly aggravated allegation of marijuana cultivation), and in the rare event of a trial, the Court allows an instruction on jury nullification and the family is acquitted (and for the sake of argument, assume the defendants admit the conduct, but rely on the nullification instruction).

Down the hall, a case of substantially the same facts goes to trial, although this defendant is not a local - perhaps an unemployed transplant from Los Angeles. This defendant can't even afford a suit for trial, much less money to post bond, so has a pretty rough appearance from several months in the county jail prior to trial. No ties to the community, a virtual unknown in Antlers, America. This judge also allows a jury nullification instruction, but this defendant is convicted.

Seems to me to be pretty dangerous for a jury to be empowered to determine who the law should apply to. When judges and lawyers argue and make legal determinations, the arguments and findings are all in the light of day - on the record - and subject to appellate review. Remember jury deliberations are not - there is no avenue for appealing what occurs in the confines of a jury room unless a juror chooses to reveal those exchanges (which seldom happens).

Jury nullification is a dangerous concept. "We the jury choose to acquit one defendant for the same actions for which we would convict another...."

[USG '60]

This illustrates the value of reputation and roots in a community.

[possumfritter]

Whether or not there's a celebration will depend entirely on the results.

I was being and thinking positive on your behalf. You know, see it in your mind as coming true and it will. I am a product of psychocybernetics. But that sure ain't been no good to me with the Oklahoma Lottery.

[PennyQuilts]

Jury nullification - what is the relevance in state court? Kevin? Other practicing Oklahoma lawyers?

[Bunty]

If found guilty, they deserve whatever justice the jury metes out to them.

And if I was on the jury I would require the prosecution to put a witness on the stand to tell how someone was harmed from this pot growing. If it wasn't done, I would vote not guilty because the law against marijuana as used against this case is totally wrong and unjust.

[Bunty]

Jury nullification is a dangerous concept. "We the jury choose to acquit one defendant for the same actions for which we would convict another...."

Wrong. As I stated elsewhere, in a drug case I would base my judgement as a juror upon if the defendent has actually harmed someone against his or her will, not based on who the person is. So I'm all for jury nullification.

[Bunty]

Caboose - I respectfully disagree. In fact, jurors are typically instructed in both State and Federal court to the contrary. Jurors are finders of fact - judges rule on the law. Jurors are duty-bound to follow the law.

I'm not so naive to overlook the fact that jurors often reach a compromise in the jury room, often associated with varying degrees of jury nullification theory. It happens. That is not, however, a "right" of a juror and in fact, in direct conflict with every juror's oath to "follow the law".

Whatever, the secret to getting out of jury duty is to have some jury nullification propaganda sticking out of your pocket when being questioned as a prospect.

[Bunty]

You should be complaining to the legislators. They are the ones that have the power to do something about it.

It would be a waste of time. The majority of Oklahoma legislators fear they would get thrown out of office if they eased up on Oklahoma laws against marijuana. The same goes with the federal legislators. I would even bet the majority of Oklahomans would be highly irate and strongly opposed to any ideas of making medical marijuana legal. Ater all, another conservative state, South Dakota nixed legal medical marijuana at the polls.

Further more, as an astute political observor in here pointed out to me, the Republicans are out to claim the governor's office in 2010 and they sure don't want to take a chance blowing it by getting associated with anything like supporting legalizing medical marijuana.

[mugofbeer]

A side note on the legalization of medical pot. In Colorado, they've realized that a pretty fair number of folks using pot for medical reasons don't seem to have any real medical problems. They've started pressuring a chiropracter in a Denver suburb that has significantly increased his business since he got his license to sell. He claims he never keeps more on hand than he sells in one day but he had at least a dozen different varieties "on hand." He's currently under investigation but they can't decide what constitutes distribution for "medical purposes" vs. "dealing."

[HVAC Instructor]

Midtowner - A fairly well thought out and verbose reply, (as practicioners of jurispurdence are wont to do) but you made a lot of incorrect assumptions:

If it is your contention that because this is rarely prosecuted compared to the number of times the law is broken, ergo injustice, then by extension, where do you come down on rape? It happens a lot, especially with date rape, and it's never prosecuted. Speeding? Child pornography? Where exactly do you draw the line?

The topic of this discussion is Oklahoma marijuana law. Why create additional arguments concerning other offenses having nothing to do with the topic at hand? Further, it was your contention that the law is selectively enforced and rarely prosecuted, and that these people must have somehow crossed someone within the local government, hence their being charged.

Well here's the thing. Lawyers aren't the ones who make laws. And unless a law happens to be unconstitutional (and this one has been tested many, many times and is not unconstutional), there's not much that can be done to change things. What you have to do is influence those in the state legislature and Congress to change the laws. "It's not fair!!!!" is not a defense and will probably not impress anyone at trial.

Are you saying that lawyers have no influence with lawmakers, probably a majority of whom are lawers themselves? I have already stated earlier in the thread that I have voiced my opinion on Oklahoma's drug laws, among other issues, to my legislators. Why would you even make such a statement such as "it's not fair!!!" not being a defense? Lets be realistic here. You know little about me, but had you read earlier posts, perhaps you could have avoided such a statement. Discussion boards are only one of numerous methods of public communication. You seem to have assumed that OKC talk is the only place I voice my opinion.

If this is your method of challenging these laws, it really only makes you look foolish and like you don't understand how laws are made.

There you go again with the assumption that because someone voices an opinion on a message board they look foolish. Well, it looks pretty foolish that an aspiring attorney who just completed the bar exam would make such assumptions. Hopefully you will not make similar assumptions in court when you get your opportunity. I'm not trying to turn this into a personality issue, I just want to avoid unnecessary assumptions bordering on insult.

I guess blacks and hispanics probably don't show up anywhere on your radar even though they make up the majority of defendants charged with this crime. Your approach to protesting these laws is too narrowly focused. You'll get nowhere if all you do is complain when white, middle class folks are prosecuted for drug crimes.

Yet another incorrect assumption. I believe Oklahoma's marijuana laws to be unjust across the board regardless of the race or socio-economic status of the individuals who find themselves being charged with marijuana posession. Laws like OK's are one of the reasons so many blacks and hispanics populate our prisons. This working family we are discussing will likely have the money and means to hire the best attorney to resolve this issue outside of court whereas many minorities and poor whites will not. That is an even greater injustice to me.

You would do well to broaden your horizons -- look at legislators and congressmen who sit idly by while the state locks up thousands of non-violent offenders for this crime. Look at the private prison industry which is not only building private prisons all over the state to house these people, it's also peddling an amazing amount of influence at both the state and federal levels. When you complain about these individual cases, you're really complaining about the end result of a process, so why not turn your focus to the beginning of the process where if enough pressure is brought, real change could happen?

More assumptions, now as to the broadness of my horizions? My friend, you have no idea. Other than the "horizions" assumption, and the assumption that I am only complaining about the end result, I agree with you about idle legislators who cause our prisons to be filled with non violent offenders and the private prison lobby.

The bottom line is that Oklahoma's marijuana laws are out dated, too harsh and need to be changed because no good whatsoever is being done for our communities as a result. In the meantime, while we work toward convincing our legislators to change these laws, jury nullification is one method that can be used to get the message across to idle legislators and over zealous prosecutors looking only for the next conviction to place in their "win" column, instead of actually seeking justice.

[mugofbeer]

So Bunty - simply because you don't agree with the law, would you acquit all prostitution charges? Would you acquit a possession of heroin charge because no one was harmed? Would you acquit the man getting on board an international flight because he hadn't done anyone any harm? Again, laws are on the books for a reason. If each American goes around interpreting the law for his own peace of mind or trying to decide if I think graffitti is art or vandalism, then we are in for legal chaos and anarchy. There's that group discussed in the other thread that is going around the country pushing for legalization (if only for medical purposes). If you don't want to convict folks like these in Antlers, then work with this group to get the law changed. Until then, laws are on the books and people need to abide by them. I will even put my seatbelt on as long as it is the law.

[USG '60]

Beautiful post, man.

[mugofbeer]

So Bunty - simply because you don't agree with the law, would you acquit all prostitution charges? Would you acquit a possession of heroin charge because no one was harmed? Would you acquit the man getting on board an international flight because he hadn't done anyone any harm? Again, laws are on the books for a reason. If each American goes around interpreting the law for his own peace of mind or trying to decide if I think graffitti is art or vandalism, then we are in for legal chaos and anarchy. There's that group discussed in the other thread that is going around the country pushing for legalization (if only for medical purposes). If you don't want to convict folks like these in Antlers, then work with this group to get the law changed. Until then, laws are on the books and people need to abide by them. I will even put my seatbelt on as long as it is the law.

Should have said "acquit the man who tried to get on board the international flight with a gun....."

[USG '60]

Should have said "acquit the man who tried to get on board the international flight with a gun....."

So by your standards those who ran the "underground railroad" DESERVED to be prosecuted. Civil disobedience is always wrong in your world? Bad laws are just fine with you?

[PennyQuilts]

Civil Disobedience is a tool to demonstrate how ridiculous the penalties for a given infraction can be when good people are willing to pay the price on principal. Civil disobedience takes courage and conviction. Trying to equate possession of pot to civil disobedience is an insult to the men and women who have laid their freedom on the line to change bad laws. This wasn't about changing the law. This was about a family smoking pot and hoping they didn't get caught. Nothing noble about it and it WASN'T civil disobedience.

[Bunty]

So Bunty - simply because you don't agree with the law, would you acquit all prostitution charges? Would you acquit a possession of heroin charge because no one was harmed? Would you acquit the man getting on board an international flight because he hadn't done anyone any harm? Again, laws are on the books for a reason. If each American goes around interpreting the law for his own peace of mind or trying to decide if I think graffitti is art or vandalism, then we are in for legal chaos and anarchy. There's that group discussed in the other thread that is going around the country pushing for legalization (if only for medical purposes). If you don't want to convict folks like these in Antlers, then work with this group to get the law changed. Until then, laws are on the books and people need to abide by them. I will even put my seatbelt on as long as it is the law.

For a more free and safer society, consensual crimes like prostitution should be legal. After all, not all of us have the charm and sex appeal to get sex for free. You can't really regulate prostitution unless its legalized.

Same with drugs. If heroin was legal I wouldn't be any more concerned about someone in possession of it any more than someone in possession of strong whiskey? But with it illegal I'm more concerned about the heroin because unlike alcohol it's sold under unregulated conditions and so some risk of unintentionaly taking an overdose. But then addiction to heroin is less harmful to the body than addiction to alcohol. So, yes, heroin should be legalized. Then cops can make society more safe by having more time going after the people, the real criminals who are really committing harmful acts against the will of the people.