Jury Pool In Montana Stages "Mutiny"

[Duncan]

You are absolutely entitled to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. The people are also entitled to a fair trial.

When prospective jurors proffer they will not uphold the law, whatever the law is and whatever the reason, not based upon evidence presented but on personal bias, this nation has devolved into lawlessness. As a matter of principle this is unacceptable to me.

It would be less offensive had the jury been seated, heard the case, and found him not guilty based upon evidence. As it is there was a population that effectively said we don't respect the rule of law. If this isn't anarchy I don't know what is?

Well we at least know where you stand on the Rights of Man and the Indiana Constitution :

Indiana Constitution - Article 1

Section 19. Criminal cases--Jury determination

Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact

Here is a paradox for you .
You get called for jury duty you get accepted to serve .
The crime in question is -- what ever - take your pick .
The situation is such that the accused did no wrong ... maybe even did the right thing by breaking the law IE shot a dog that was vicious toward a pregnant woman - crime discharge in city limits .

You have sworn to up hold the law .
The law ... the true law is the Indiana Constitution .

Now your paradox .
The accused broke a law ( really a code but that is another matter ) he discharged a firearm in city limits .
The dog got killed , the pregnant woman is saved .
So you want to convict to up hold the law .
Wait .. wait one min. how do you do that when the Law , the Constitution says that you can judge BOTH THE LAW and the facts ... so now which do you follow .
You know ... if a person has common sense and a strong moral composure that he did the right thing reason and logic demand that he be set free . That there is no crime ... but if you convict he will be punished .
What do you do ?

I can only deduce from your statements that you would convict the good samaritan and that you find Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution " unacceptable "

Thanks
Duncan

 

[Duncan]

Not even close. A jury is NOT the people. Juries are to be impartial trier of fact. The jury is to set aside all bias and render a decision based upon fact and law. Facts as presented in evidence. Law as presented by the judge.

It would be one thing to say after listening to the evidence that there was insufficient evidence to find guilt. It's another to say I don't care what the evidence is. The first is the jury doing its job. The second is an abbrigation of the responsibility.

The point raised in the full posting of the article, which omitted some pretty important information about the case, was that this guy was dealing drugs, not just consuming. You may or may not find distinction. You may or may not like the law. But when we as members of a jury premeditatedly decide on extrajudicial remedies we have devolved to lawlessness. I don't see how you can see it any other way.

The people were entitled to have the case heard. Prospective jurors failed to execute their constitutional responsibilities.

BTW it wasn't all jurors. It was just enough that a jury couldn't be seated from the pool.



No disagreement at all from me. I think there are too many laws and too many that aren't followed, or enforced. I'm all for getting rid of laws that society no longer wants or needs, and enforcing those that are left.

HUMM ? Even when the judge instructs the jury to judge both the law and the facts .

Indiana Constitution - Article 1

Section 19. Criminal cases--Jury determination

Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact

With all due respect and this may irritate you ... and that is not the reason .
I would hope you would think about the things you believe so you could be a good juror if called upon ...
You do not understand what the jural system is at all in this country .. or should I say what it was and is suppose to be .

The position you have is not the one that Washington , Jefferson , Franklin , and the Adams boys had .

The jury system was set up as a last ditch , final check and balance on injustice and a tyrannical government or agents of the government .

A way for the PEOPLE in the community to say NO this LAW is wrong .
This man is not a danger to us and we want him to remain in OUR community .

I would urge you to think about this ... if you get run through the court system . For a crime that you did not do or if you did it was some type of improper bureaucratic regulation .
I believe very strongly that you would be hoping that the jury would jury both the law and the facts .

Thanks
Duncan

 

[serpicostraight]

Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ‘mutiny’

Here's the full article. The "gentleman" who had the pot was dealing, had 8 felony convictions, and was out on bail for a theft charge when arrested on the drug charges.

What law will we decide shouldn't be enforced next? Child Pornography? Incest? The way to change the law is not to turn to lawlessness. Your joy comes at the expense of the law. Anarchy wins, and the rule of law loses.

Why not post the article with the truth in it rather than one that abbreviates a lot of relevent information? Kind of a warped sense of heros.

if not putting someone in a cage for years just for having a small amount of a green leafy substance is anarchy then anarchy rocks.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

We are not as far apart as anyone may think. I want laws struck down or repealed so they aren't on the books. I don't necessarily want interpretation of the law to be left to a jury. You end up getting people who say the Constitution is unconstitutional. You get unequal justice.

This is how we get the death penalty for a black man who kills a white woman but not for a white man who kills a black woman. It becomes a crap shoot whether you are lucky enough to get a single person that either hates the government enough to side with you, or unlucky enough to get someone that hates you to side against. Sometimes jury nullification is proper. Far too often it is not. OJ. Rodney King cops. Take your pick. YMMV.

I think it's one thing to consider circumstance and motive. It's completely another to say you will be fair and impartial knowing you won't be.

I acquiece to the brilliant legal scholars who've posted herein. I have nothing further of value to add.

Carry on.

 

[Eddie]

I think that some of the posts have gotten pretty far afield of the actual article. No jury was seated so no jury nullification occurred. They were in the part of the trial called voir dire. That is the part where the judge and sometimes the lawyers can ask questions of the potential jurors to try and get 12 who will impartially try the case. One of the questions asked that day was whether or not they might convict a person for having 1/16th of an ounce of pot. "One after another" said that they would not convict. Those persons were excused from being jurors based on their statements that they would never convict; they would not impartially try the case. When the pool of potential jurors shrunk down to 27 the judge polled them as a group and found five more who would not convict a person of having 1/16th ounce of pot, leaving a pool of 22 potential jurors.

During a recess and faced with the possibility that a jury could not be seated, the State cut a deal. The Defendant took a 20 year sentence with 19 years suspended which sounds like a pretty good deal if he doesn't violate his probation.

The real point of the article to me was not jury nullification but rather the question that with changing social views towards marijuana is it really fair to insist that a potential juror agree beforehand that they might convict based upon possession of a small amount of marijuana; is that really a jury of peers?

 

[Bill of Rights]

We are not as far apart as anyone may think. I want laws struck down or repealed so they aren't on the books. I don't necessarily want interpretation of the law to be left to a jury. You end up getting people who say the Constitution is unconstitutional. You get unequal justice.

This is how we get the death penalty for a black man who kills a white woman but not for a white man who kills a black woman. It becomes a crap shoot whether you are lucky enough to get a single person that either hates the government enough to side with you, or unlucky enough to get someone that hates you to side against. Sometimes jury nullification is proper. Far too often it is not. OJ. Rodney King cops. Take your pick. YMMV.

I think it's one thing to consider circumstance and motive. It's completely another to say you will be fair and impartial knowing you won't be.

I acquiece to the brilliant legal scholars who've posted herein. I have nothing further of value to add.

Carry on.

You make some good points with the example of conviction or acquittal on the basis of race. Is this not why you are entitled to legal representation? Would it not be your attorney's job to either properly apply the process of voir dire or to request a judge to recuse him/herself or even request a change of venue? Would it not be the job of the people to boot a prosecutor who has an inordinate racial proportion of the criminals he brings to the bar of justice?
The ideal would be that the jury be impartial on the basis of race, neither all NBP nor all KKK. I'd personally prefer none of either.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Ramen]

If you are judging the law and the facts and you determine you will not prosecute someone for minor possession of pot, then you have to apply that to all cases, even if the defendant has an ugly past.

 

[jeremy]

Uhhh....

What the boys in Montana did has a LONG tradition in the US, Predating the Civil War even. The 2 most popular uses that come to my mind was Pre-Civil War with Juries refusing to enforce Slavery Laws, and the Send during Prohibition with Juries likewise refusing to convict for Alcohol Charges...

Anarchy indeed...
What is happening is the People are realizing that We The People do actually form a part in the Check and Balance System that is the Legislative and Judicial Branches of the Government through what we can do in the Court Rooms...

 

[machete]

The Defendant took a 20 year sentence with 19 years suspended which sounds like a pretty good deal if he doesn't violate his probation.

its a pretty BAD deal,,,for the TAXPAYERS!!! we have to clothe,,,feed,,,and watch a guy for one year,,,OVER A PLANT!!!! plus 19 years of probation,,,making a job for a useless gov worker...

thats just stupid... these drug laws are a bad dead,,,FOR US!!!

 

[machete]

We are not as far apart as anyone may think. I want laws struck down or repealed so they aren't on the books. I don't necessarily want interpretation of the law to be left to a jury. You end up getting people who say the Constitution is unconstitutional. You get unequal justice.

This is how we get the death penalty for a black man who kills a white woman but not for a white man who kills a black woman. It becomes a crap shoot whether you are lucky enough to get a single person that either hates the government enough to side with you, or unlucky enough to get someone that hates you to side against. Sometimes jury nullification is proper. Far too often it is not. OJ. Rodney King cops. Take your pick. YMMV.

I think it's one thing to consider circumstance and motive. It's completely another to say you will be fair and impartial knowing you won't be.

I acquiece to the brilliant legal scholars who've posted herein. I have nothing further of value to add.

Carry on.

Semper,,,i dont know why youre getting so riled up over this... a few weeks ago,,,you told us all not to worry about something that happened in Arkansas,,,because it wasnt in Indiana...

Seriously, why are people getting tweaked about something that is happening 600 miles away? You guys should go check out some of the Black Friday sales and take your kids to see Santa Claus. Get some perspective on what's important in life.

Missoula---Montana is even further,,,1771 miles away,,,using your own words,,,you shouldnt even be in this thread...

 

[mrjarrell]

voir dire: That's Latin for jury tampering.

 

[Indy317]

What law will we decide shouldn't be enforced next? Child Pornography? Incest? The way to change the law is not to turn to lawlessness. Your joy comes at the expense of the law. Anarchy wins, and the rule of law loses.

The "law" is relative. People are sick of laws restricting freedom. Should juries uphold laws against interracial marriage? What about the law in NYC that makes it a multiple thousand dollar fine to take another person's AC unit that they don't want. Yea, it happens.

When prospective jurors proffer they will not uphold the law, whatever the law is and whatever the reason, not based upon evidence presented but on personal bias, this nation has devolved into lawlessness.

There is nothing that would ever prevent governments from fining speeders $10,000. In fact, in Europe, this is done in some countries, as the fine is based on your income. If such laws are passed, I would hope to hell judges and/or juries would use common sense. Did you like how the traffic court judge in Marion County would smack people with high court costs when they dared to request a 5-10 min. trail and lost? Thankfully the state stepped in and changed the law.

Besides, if we can't prosecute marijuana laws, how is that "lawlessness?" My guess is that there was a period of time in the past where marijuana wasn't against the law. A couple morality monitors got into power and low and behold, a new rule is created to control the masses. How is that just and moral? Instead of looking at it as "lawlessness," look at it as citizens gaining more freedoms, or a return back to a historical time.

 

[Eddie]

its a pretty BAD deal,,,for the TAXPAYERS!!! we have to clothe,,,feed,,,and watch a guy for one year,,,OVER A PLANT!!!! plus 19 years of probation,,,making a job for a useless gov worker...

thats just stupid... these drug laws are a bad dead,,,FOR US!!!

Guess the defendant wasn't all that confident in what would happen if a jury was seated.

 

[Eddie]

If you are judging the law and the facts and you determine you will not prosecute someone for minor possession of pot, then you have to apply that to all cases, even if the defendant has an ugly past.

Dunno. If it is ok for the jury to decline to convict when they don't believe in the law should it also not be equally ok for a jury to convict a "bad" person even if the state fails to prove its case? It seems like the two actions would be different sides of the same coin and the defendant would still have a right to appeal.

 

[dross]

The real point of the article to me was not jury nullification but rather the question that with changing social views towards marijuana is it really fair to insist that a potential juror agree beforehand that they might convict based upon possession of a small amount of marijuana; is that really a jury of peers?

I think this is exactly the point. If, as I believe, the jury may judge the facts and the law, it's a violation of the defendant's rights to force the jury to answer questions insisting the demonstrate that they will prejudge the law as favorable to the State.

Again, using the analogy of lying to a robber, I say that I may morally lie as to my beliefs about the law in order to prevent the State stacking the jury.

 

[level.eleven]

I think that some of the posts have gotten pretty far afield of the actual article. No jury was seated so no jury nullification occurred. They were in the part of the trial called voir dire. That is the part where the judge and sometimes the lawyers can ask questions of the potential jurors to try and get 12 who will impartially try the case. One of the questions asked that day was whether or not they might convict a person for having 1/16th of an ounce of pot. "One after another" said that they would not convict. Those persons were excused from being jurors based on their statements that they would never convict; they would not impartially try the case. When the pool of potential jurors shrunk down to 27 the judge polled them as a group and found five more who would not convict a person of having 1/16th ounce of pot, leaving a pool of 22 potential jurors.

During a recess and faced with the possibility that a jury could not be seated, the State cut a deal. The Defendant took a 20 year sentence with 19 years suspended which sounds like a pretty good deal if he doesn't violate his probation.

The real point of the article to me was not jury nullification but rather the question that with changing social views towards marijuana is it really fair to insist that a potential juror agree beforehand that they might convict based upon possession of a small amount of marijuana; is that really a jury of peers?

The 1 year for 20 was a previous conviction, if I read the articles correctly.

That last paragraph is what I have been wondering. Didn't the judge essentially try the case before it ever began by asking potential jurors if they would convict the man on trial? That system seems like a scam to the layman.

 

[firecop9774]

I get all my news from "Toke of the Town", and treat every journalistic word as gospel.........

 

[mrjarrell]

I get all my news from "Toke of the Town", and treat every journalistic word as gospel.........

They just took their piece from the Missoulian.
Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages "mutiny"

 

[Eddie]

The 1 year for 20 was a previous conviction, if I read the articles correctly.

That last paragraph is what I have been wondering. Didn't the judge essentially try the case before it ever began by asking potential jurors if they would convict the man on trial? That system seems like a scam to the layman.

No idea what the law is there regarding voir dire. There is ongoing debate and numerous appeals about what is fair during voir dire. I took the article to mean that the judge was getting worried as juror after juror said that they could not convict so he was trying to see if there was enough of a pool left to get a jury.

It varies from place to place but each side normally gets to challenge a juror "for cause" if during voir dire they turn up information that the juror might not be impartial. Each side gets an additional number of "peremptory challenges" that let jurors be stricken without having to give a reason why they were stricken. In Indiana if the court runs out of potential jurors then the judge has to send the bailiff out onto the courthouse square to start pulling people in off the street. It happens every few years and usually makes for a news story.

I think its a good question as to whether or not its fair to ask if a juror would convict. I don't know about not asking any questions. For example, a common question on jury questionaires is whether or not a potential juror is related by blood or marriage to any of the parties. I that's a good thing to know going into a trial.

 

[Lobo]

.