Judge finds ‘increasing’ difficulty in seating marijuana juries

[brick]

By David Edwards

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010 -- 10:21 am

 

It's becoming more and more difficult to find juries that will produce a guilty verdict in marijuana cases, according to a judge in Missoula County, Montana.

 

"I think it's going to become increasingly difficult to seat a jury in marijuana cases, at least the ones involving a small amount," District Judge Dusty Deschamps said Friday after potential jurors refused to convict a Montana man for having a 1/16 of an ounce of Marijuana.

 

An April 23 search of Touray Cornell's home found several used marijuana joints, a pipe, and some residue. He's is also charged with the criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.

 

Cornell's neighbors had called the police because they thought he was selling drugs. The defendant admitted in an affidavit that he had distributed small amounts of marijuana.

 

One potential juror after another told the court that they would not convict the man for possessing a 1/16 of an ounce.

 

Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul told the Associated Press that the jurors staged "a mutiny."

 

"District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll as to who might agree," the Missoulian reported. "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."

 

"I thought, 'Geez, I don't know if we can seat a jury," Deschamps said.

 

Paul and Cornell's attorney, Martin Elison, worked out a plea deal during recess.

 

Public opinion "is not supportive of the state's marijuana law and appeared to prevent any conviction from being obtained simply because an unbiased jury did not appear available under any circumstances," Elison wrote in the plea agreement.

 

Cornell entered an Alford plea Friday, not admitting guilt, but acknowledging there was enough evidence to convict him. The judge sentenced Cornell to 20 years with 19 of them suspended, to be served concurrently with his sentence in a theft case. Cornell was given credit for the 200 days already served.

 

"I think it's going to become increasingly difficult to seat a jury in marijuana cases, at least the ones involving a small amount," the judge said.

 

"It's kind of a reflection of society as a whole on the issue," he added.

 

"If more potential jurors start turning down nonviolent drug cases, our drug laws will change," Jason Kuznicki wrote for the blog The League of Ordinary Gentlemen.

 

Jury nullification often happens when a law is perceived to be unjust. During alcohol prohibition, nearly 60 percent of trials were nullified by jurors. Nullification was also often used in cases involving the Alien and Sedition and Fugitive Slave Acts.

 

In a more recent case, George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf suspected that jury nullification was used to spare former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich

[The Hash Nibbler]

Hey Brick =) . pathetic they even wanted to lay charges for that amount, but how cool are those jurers . he-he! Think people are tired of being tied up in cases that are pathetic and not hurting anyone. Waste of court time, tax payers money and no-one wants to know when there are Kiddy fiddlers and murders roaming free................................... Gh72

[..............................]

Let me get this right!

 

 

1/16 of an ounce = 20 years jail time, suspended for 19 years = 12 months jail for 1/16 of an ounce.

 

 

No jury would convict anyone for such a small amount of cannabis. So the judge did a quick whip around of 27 potentional jurors "put ur hand up if you will find this person guilty", only 5 of the 27 said yes.

 

 

The judge says " bugger it! i'm gonna find you guilty anyway!" Even though he could not get 12 jurors to do so.

 

 

Doesn't seem to be quite right!

 

 

Am i reading this correctly or am I way of the mark?

[dani]

Let me get this right!

 

 

1/16 of an ounce = 20 years jail time, suspended for 19 years = 12 months jail for 1/16 of an ounce.

 

 

No jury would convict anyone for such a small amount of cannabis. So the judge did a quick whip around of 27 potentional jurors "put ur hand up if you will find this person guilty", only 5 of the 27 said yes.

 

 

The judge says " bugger it! i'm gonna find you guilty anyway!" Even though he could not get 12 jurors to do so.

 

 

Doesn't seem to be quite right!

 

 

Am i reading this correctly or am I way of the mark?

 

 

Hi HHS ,

 

No you got it exactly right and did a perfect summary!

 

 

 

[..............................]

Hi Dani

 

Doesnt 12 months behind bars seem a little exsesive for such a small amount of cannabis?

 

I probley got 1/16 of an ounce in spillage around the bowl

[Chato]

I think all the links supplied by Brick need to be examined especially the Missoulan report before passing judgment.

 

Looks like an extreme number of mitigating factors (rightly or wrongly) that led to this seemingly high sentence. Many can be argued from differing points of view.

 

Some tidbits for those who don't want to read the whole articles.

 

A subsequent search of his home turned up some burnt marijuana cigarettes, a pipe and some residue, as well as a shoulder holster for a handgun and 9mm ammunition. As a convicted felon, Cornell was prohibited from having firearms, the affidavit noted.

 

Yes, no gun and not strange for an American to own a gun or holster but being a felon an in context...

 

Potential jurors also couldn’t know about Cornell’s criminal history, which included eight felonies, most of them in and around Chicago several years ago.

 

But the judge could and...

 

In sentencing him Friday, Deschamps referred to him as “an eight-time loser†and said, “I’m not convinced in any way that you don’t present an ongoing threat to the community.â€

 

Deschamps being the judge.

 

Normally, Paul said after the sentencing, a case involving such a small amount of marijuana wouldn’t have gone this far through the court system except for the felony charge involved.

 

Paul being Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

 

 

 

I have absolutely no disagreement that cannabis should not be illegal in any shape or form and this bloke should not even be fronting court for such an amount or charge relating to cannabis but I think there are two distinctly different issues here at least.

 

One being he was a criminal in the eyes of the law for many offences beside cannabis and his sentence reflects the view of the judge (who again rightly or wrongly is there to adjudicate the law as he has been trained). Previous criminal history is a huge factor in sentencing especially in some states in the U.S where they have the 3 felony strikes and you're out (life imprisonment) laws.

 

And secondly what the jury chose to do in relation to the cannabis charge.

 

Props, kudos, pats on the back for the jurors deadset

 

But do we want to make a martyr out of this bloke and not let the facts stand in the way of a good story. Those facts being he was sentenced in relation to his previous criminal history not just for the few grams of weed.

 

peace

c

[dani]

Hi Dani

 

Doesnt 12 months behind bars seem a little exsesive for such a small amount of cannabis?

 

I probley got 1/16 of an ounce in spillage around the bowl

 

Hey Hippie,

I hear you , love finding little buds beside my bedside where i mull up

But think Chato has put it all in correct perspective

Edited December 28, 2010 by dani

[..............................]

ok

 

my bad

 

I should have read the whole story!

 

Teach me for being a lazy....u no wot

[dani]

ok

 

my bad

 

I should have read the whole story!

 

Teach me for being a lazy....u no wot

 

Not lazy ,

Just Chato summed up so well and put it in a way that showed all sides, so we really thought about the facts and didn't get caught up with indignation of it all

Bottom line to me tho', is no jury of his peers could find anything wrong with him smoking nor the amount that he had.. That to me is the gold to the moral of this post..

 

Edited December 29, 2010 by dani

[Chato]

Thanks Dani and your right about the moral of the story.

 

No worries Happyhippie I didn't want to come across as patronizing just wanted to show the bigger picture but it was after 4am when i posted that .

 

peace

c