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

[The Straight Story]

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

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week.

Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt.

They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.

The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.

No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.

In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll as to who might agree. Of the 27 potential jurors before him, maybe five raised their hands. A couple of others had already been excused because of their philosophical objections.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_d6b1aaca-edfc-527f-ad11-f1691fdc6e3b.html

[Warren Stupidity]

1. I'd prefer it if jurors kept their opinions to themselves and just

voted 'not guilty' instead.

This process ends up selecting as your 'peers' only those who will convict you for possession, a similar process puts only supporters of the death penalty onto capital cases.

[rhett o rick]

3. In the selection process they may have been asked, "can you find someone guilty if it is proven that

they had only 1/16 oz". I got similar questions when I was in the jury selection process.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. And I would have answered 'yes'

because I *could* convict on that charge, in some alternate universe. For the reasons outlined in my post, I would also agree that I *could* agree on a death penalty charge. In both cases I would *very likely* (with a probability of 0.999999999) not do that at all.

[lepus]

9. I agree

I could find myself sentencing someone to death for the proper crime.

My death penalty leanings are a bit to the right. If doubt is not in question at all, and the crime is bad enough, then yes. Otherwise very long jail sentence.

Drug sentencing? I would have serious issues finding someone guilty of drug or drug related charges.

There is a drug war going on. Some of us are going to fight the madness in the jury room.

[madrchsod]

2. they discussed the issue before they were called into the courtroom..

interesting turn of events and a novel way to get out of jury duty.

[MindPilot]

4. Nowhere in the articles does it say or even imply that.

In my experience serving as a juror, you have no idea who your fellow jurors are until you are grouped up and led to the courtroom. And then you don't know what the case is about until the panel is seated and the selection process starts.

[madrchsod]

6. where i am at they put about 25 or so in a room..

then call us individually to replace the rejected juror. at least there`s plenty of time to question what we are being called in for.

[MindPilot]

5. That happened to me

The judge was getting kind of exasperated by the number of people who said they shouldn't even be trying the suspect. (He was caught with a tiny amount of cocaine; it would be his 3rd strike and a conviction would put him away for life.)
He stopped the lawyer's questioning, asked the jury panel, anyone of you who has a "problem" with drug laws, please raise your hand." A little over half the panel raised their hands. The judge said "you're all dismissed; thank you for your service."

[lonestarnot]

7. They should have hung out to nullify!

[mitchtv]

10. time to shut up and nullify

don't tell the motherfuckers a g-d thing. Get on that jury.
I couuld convict( if it were one of the Bushs or Palins)