Medical Marijuana Supporters Not Donating To Obama

[cristinew]

http://www.policemisconduct.net/ and more misconduct

[peanutbutter]

That's why I cited it, it's well known. Unfortunately most people that are convicted (or not), because of a bad jury, are nobodies. Their cases get zero attention. What you're arguing is that people will ignore their proclivities and prejudices unless they feel that their proclivities and prejudices are in relation to a law they think is wrong. Sp people will engage in conduct they are not supposed to in order to NOT convict someone but they won't engage in that same behavior in order TO convict someone. Strange line of reasoning you are employing there.

 

So the solution is to convince everyone that jury nullification is illegal.

 

No one should know that the judge is lying when they say "If x,y,z you MUST convict."

 

Keep the public in the dark.

 

Jury nullification isn't a possibility being debated. It exists now and is being hidden from members of juries.

Edited October 14, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

Same goes for Tommy Jefferson. Quoting him matters not in this day and age. Take a swig of your own warnings.

 

We've taken away some of the teeth from the state on this issue.

 

Next we'll be taking some of the money. Asset forfeiture is going to take a hit. Budget cuts will hit on 1/1. They will have to cut some fat somewhere.

 

Enforcement of drug laws will take a financial hit from both directions.

 

It's not nice to dis Tommy. Alter is much much better than abolish.

[Herb Cannabis]

This is and has been off topic for a while now, but I'm glad that it has led to this discussion. Please click on the link and spread the word.

 

The Fully Informed Jury Association http://fija.org/

 

[CaveatLector]

So the solution is to convince everyone that jury nullification is illegal.

Convince? It ISN'T legal.

[peanutbutter]

Convince? It ISN'T legal.

 

That's the claim.

 

Yet the functionality was established by the constitution and the founding fathers.

 

It is built into the system. And until the jury discussion can be monitored, that is the way it will be.

[peanutbutter]

It is not built INTO the system, it is a consequence of the system. When the system is based on the decisions of free thinking people, they can refuse to follow the judge's instructions, simple as that. I think it unlikely that someday a judge will instruct a jury, then follow up with, "OR, you can ignore everything I just said and exercise your right to jury nullification." Maybe in New Hampshire.

 

It might be standard jury instruction #1.

 

The judge instructs the jury that they are to use their everyday life experience to render a verdict. To apply their own common sense.

 

Then it all goes down hill. Several instructions then follow telling the jury that they can't apply their own common sense. That they are only allowed to think the way the court allows them to.

[Restorium2]

It might be standard jury instruction #1.

 

The judge instructs the jury that they are to use their everyday life experience to render a verdict. To apply their own common sense.

 

Then it all goes down hill. Several instructions then follow telling the jury that they can't apply their own common sense. That they are only allowed to think the way the court allows them to.

People do what they want. I've been on many juries. The judges instructions sound like blah blah blah. I have been the defendant in a case that had a juror blurt out his thoughts and ruin the trial. You don't need to ask them to do it. They will if it's bad enough. People aren't stupid. I tell you what though, I wouldn't want to be a defendant in a case where the judge thought I had something to do with ruining a jury. That would set you back.

[peanutbutter]

People do what they want. I've been on many juries. The judges instructions sound like blah blah blah. I have been the defendant in a case that had a juror blurt out his thoughts and ruin the trial. You don't need to ask them to do it. They will if it's bad enough. People aren't stupid. I tell you what though, I wouldn't want to be a defendant in a case where the judge thought I had something to do with ruining a jury. That would set you back.

 

I love jury nullification.

[Restorium2]

I love jury nullification.

I have to say that I loved it too. But it was righteous, not trumped up to get me off.

[CaveatLector]

That's the claim.

 

 

Uhh, no, that's the fact.

[peanutbutter]

Uhh, no, that's the fact.

 

OK .. chapter and verse, please.

[CaveatLector]

OK .. chapter and verse, please.

Pretty simple. Jurors are sworn and therefore under oath. Jury nullification is a violation of the oath (court's orders). Violation of the oath is contempt. Contempt could land you in jail for up to 93 days and/or up to a $7500 fine per act of contempt.

 

This is the oath administered to the jury from Michigan Standard Jury Instructions:

 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that, in this case now before the court, you will justly decide the questions submitted to you, that, unless you are discharged by the court from further deliberation, you will render a true verdict, and that you will render your verdict only on the evidence introduced and in accordance with the instructions of the court, so help you God?

[peanutbutter]

Contempt .. nearly anything can be contempt.

 

In this case, again, you would have to monitor the discussion by the jury. You would have to prosecute based on conversions in the jury room.

 

Pressing the case forward would involve serious violations of the sanctity of the jury room. Laws would have to be broken to prosecute those accused.

[Restorium2]

Contempt .. nearly anything can be contempt.

 

In this case, again, you would have to monitor the discussion by the jury. You would have to prosecute based on conversions in the jury room.

 

Pressing the case forward would involve serious violations of the sanctity of the jury room. Laws would have to be broken to prosecute those accused.

Ever been in a jury room? Must be not. They have the court clerk gestapo in there with you. You are making an incorrect picture here. You don't get away with anything in the jury room. You would be better off saying something while on lunch break.

[peanutbutter]

Pretty simple. Jurors are sworn and therefore under oath. Jury nullification is a violation of the oath (court's orders). Violation of the oath is contempt. Contempt could land you in jail for up to 93 days and/or up to a $7500 fine per act of contempt.

 

This is the oath administered to the jury from Michigan Standard Jury Instructions:

 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that, in this case now before the court, you will justly decide the questions submitted to you, that, unless you are discharged by the court from further deliberation, you will render a true verdict, and that you will render your verdict only on the evidence introduced and in accordance with the instructions of the court, so help you God?

 

How about quoting the instruction that tells the jury to use their own common sense?

[peanutbutter]

Ever been in a jury room? Must be not. They have the court clerk gestapo in there with you. You are making an incorrect picture here. You don't get away with anything in the jury room. You would be better off saying something while on lunch break.

 

Holy crap!!! They monitor jury debates now?

 

We're back to directed guilty verdicts.

Edited October 15, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

How about quoting the instruction that tells the jury to use their own common sense?

You should employ that instruction here.

 

Using common sense doesn't mean disregarding the rest of the instructions. It means using common sense in regard to interpreting evidence. In other words, if witness A saw defendant walk out of the bathroom with a knife and blood soaked towel after hearing screaming then a juror may use that circumstantial evidence to help them decide that defendant committed the murder even though witness A didn't observe the actual murder. Don't make me spoon feed you this morning peanut.

[CaveatLector]

Contempt .. nearly anything can be contempt.

Yes, true. I usually suggest that people take great care in walking their dogs because if done improperly it could be an act of contempt.

 

Oh, wait, I meant to say it may be an act of contempt for your neighbor if you let the dog shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit in their yard!

 

Don't be so fricking obtuse peanut. The only thing that can be contempt is a violation of a court order.

[ozzrokk]

I agree that as a juror you have a right to vote your conscience. I do not agree that you have to convict someone on something that you really do not believe they are guilty. Alot of courts tend to try and lead you in that direction. Kinda like the MMJ case where the jurors had seen MMJ supporters and the judge called the jury in to ask them if there was anything they saw or heard that would prevent them from convicting..... He did not ask if it would prevent them from finding the defendant guilty or not guilty. Just if it would prevent them from finding the defendant guilty..... Does that sound like a non bias judge? It wasnt all that long ago when the defendant was innocent until proven guilty but now adays many believe since you were arrested you MUST BE GUILTY.....

 

I think we should have a medical marijuana patient on EVERY jury.

[CaveatLector]

I think we should have a medical marijuana patient on EVERY jury.

. . . and a black person, white person, Native American, Jew, Catholic, Muslim, skinhead, ex-con, and maybe a wee puppy.

[ozzrokk]

. . . and a black person, white person, Native American, Jew, Catholic, Muslim, skinhead, ex-con, and maybe a wee puppy.

 

 

Come on now..... You know a jury could never have a Jew on it......

[peanutbutter]

I agree that as a juror you have a right to vote your conscience. I do not agree that you have to convict someone on something that you really do not believe they are guilty. Alot of courts tend to try and lead you in that direction. Kinda like the MMJ case where the jurors had seen MMJ supporters and the judge called the jury in to ask them if there was anything they saw or heard that would prevent them from convicting..... He did not ask if it would prevent them from finding the defendant guilty or not guilty. Just if it would prevent them from finding the defendant guilty..... Does that sound like a non bias judge? It wasnt all that long ago when the defendant was innocent until proven guilty but now adays many believe since you were arrested you MUST BE GUILTY.....

 

I think we should have a medical marijuana patient on EVERY jury.

 

I watched as the jury returned. Each jury member was threatened by the judge. Functional directed guilty verdict.

[CaveatLector]

Come on now..... You know a jury could never have a Jew on it......

My point is that we shouldn't be worried that we have certain groups represented as much as we should be worried that the jury is fair. That's what voir dire is for. Imperfect? Yes. The best we can do given human nature? Maybe. Edited October 15, 2012 by CaveatLector

[ozzrokk]

I watched as the jury returned. Each jury member was threatened by the judge. Functional directed guilty verdict.

 

 

 

Yup.