Not Guilty: How Juries Can Destroy the War on Drugs

A seldom-discussed but significant weak link in the drug war infrastructure is the ability of any defendant to have their fate decided by a jury. Although the threat of draconian sentences leads the vast majority to plead out and accept an agreed-upon punishment, those who choose to fight it out before a jury of their peers have an opportunity to escape the drug war's icy death-grip. It's a high-risk/high-reward strategy that could become more effective as public support for the war on drugs continues to decline.

A not guilty verdict in San Diego this week highlights the difficulty of securing convictions against medical marijuana providers:

SAN DIEGO COURTS – A Navy veteran who was the manager of a medical marijuana dispensary was acquitted of five charges of possessing and selling the drug illegally yesterday, a verdict that emboldened medical marijuana activists and was a setback for San Diego prosecutors who have aggressively pursued medical marijuana cases. [San Diego Union Tribune]

Meanwhile, in Baltimore, the acquittal of an accused street dealer shows how aggressive drug war tactics have eroded public trust in police:

Only two witnesses testified at the two-day trial — Correa [the arresting officer] and a crime lab technician who tested the drugs and concluded they were indeed ****** and *******. Defense attorney Marie Sennett told jurors in her opening statement that the case rested solely "on the word of the officer."

And, Sennett added, "Unfortunately, that's not enough."

The jury agreed and acquitted Walker-Bey on all charges of possessing drugs and possessing drugs with intent to distribute. [Baltimore Sun]

In a climate of increased public skepticism surrounding the efficacy of the war on drugs and the fairness of the criminal justice system, outcomes like these will hopefully become more commonplace. When the jury refuses to play along, even the virtually unchecked prosecutorial powers that have done so much to fill our prisons with drug offenders can be overcome. There's no reliable formula for spotting jurors who might be reluctant to convict in a drug case, and it only takes one to complicate the process dramatically. Provided they don't, for example, write a blog about legalizing drugs, getting on a jury can be as simple as dressing appropriately and affirming their willingness to uphold the law.

The power of juries to reshape the drug war landscape can already be seen in California, where prosecutors learned years ago that medical marijuana cases aren't nearly as open and shut as federal law would suggest. The Ed Rosenthal saga, in which the jury revolted after the verdict and got the conviction thrown out, gave federal prosecutors an early taste of what lay ahead if they tried to win the war on medical marijuana in the courtroom.

Such events go a long way towards explaining why DEA agents so often raided dispensaries and confiscated profits, while declining to press charges against anyone. Every medical marijuana trial is a guaranteed public relations nightmare and there's no upside if you can't even count on a conviction. I've long suspected that the threat of uncooperative juries may in fact have been the most significant factor in enabling California's medical marijuana industry to survive and expand during the Bush Administration. With little confidence in their ability to make an example of anybody, the Feds just broke stuff instead, while leaving the industry almost completely intact.

With marijuana legalization now rapidly approaching majority support among the American public, it just seems inevitable that prosecutors will have a harder time getting groups of 12 random people to send someone to jail for marijuana. And if that happens, even a little, the implications are far-reaching. The criminal justice system is pathetically dependent on plea-bargaining in drug cases, and would grind to a halt rather quickly if more defendants insisted on taking their case to trial.

I'm beginning to fantasize here, obviously, but I do think it's important to start looking at some of the ways in which growing public support for our cause can manifest itself in contexts besides just the ballot box. The drug war is vulnerable on all fronts and the harder we work to expose and exploit its countless weakness, the more efficient and decisive our victory will be.



News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: StoptheDrugWar.org
Author: Scott Morgan
Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org
Copyright: 2009 StoptheDrugWar.org
Website: Not Guilty: How Juries Can Destroy the War on Drugs
 
This one showed up on a few sites already and the comments ran the gamut from who's crazy enough to turn down probation or a short sentence when you face 50 to life,to we owe it to the movement to fight.Having been involved in the criminal justice system for most of my well worn life I can tell you that I took the plea every time but the first.That one cost me 5 years.I never made that mistake again even when I had to sit for 18 months before beating several charges.A good lawyer is hard to find.When you do,take his or her advice.Jury nullification is a fairly new but great concept(bless 'em at The Wire)but has the flaw of one never knowing if their friends will show up on the jury.I guess if you live in a small town of pot growers and smokers it would be a sure thing but how many of us are counted in that lot?Maybe I'll move back to Cumberland.
 
Jury nullification may be just coming back into awareness, but has been around for centuries. It was instrumental in getting rid of alcohol prohibition in the US in the late 1920s/30s, and also the abolition of slavery in the mid 1800s.

Jury nullification
Main article: Jury nullification

Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision, in other words "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[10]

In the 17th and 18th centuries there were a series of cases starting in 1670 with the trial of the Quaker William Penn which asserted the (de facto) right of a jury to pass a verdict contrary to the facts or law. A good example is the case of one Carnegie of Finhaven who in 1728 accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law (as it stood) required the jury to pass the verdict that the case had been "proven" and cause Carnegie of Finhaven to die for an accidental killing. Instead the jury asserted what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts and brought in the verdict of "not guilty". This led to the development of the not proven verdict in Scots law.

Jury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Been saying this for a long time and had the opportunity to use it a couple months ago as a juror.
Its are legal duty to make a stand about dragonian laws and we can do that in the jurors room.
 
Glad to hear this has been around for a long time.Where has it been in my lifetime?The problem is you just never know who's on the jury and a lot(majority)of the time the odds are stacked against you and the cost of a bad decision can be really costly,like a lifetime.There are still some really bad laws on the books and prosecutors will often use the threat of a maximum sentence to scare the unschooled out of their minds.Sometimes the threats are real.
 
All it takes is one strong enough to stand up. In my case there was 3 of us out of 12. Even though in my case it didn't turn out well because after the trial and a hung jury the prosecutor filed 5 new felonies against the guy, so he never eeven got a chance to leave the courtroom before he was raped in the ass again.
Its why we must sit on these juries. The system is corrupt and its about the only thing we can do to help our brothers.
 
Back
Top Bottom