Nullification occurs when jurors refuse to find a defendant guilty because the underlying law is unjust (visit the Fully Informed Jury Association if you want more details). And if I ever wind up on a jury and the government was trying to throw someone in jail for a victimless crime, I certainly hope I would do the right thing and refuse to declare the person guilty.
The good people of western Montana certainly have the right attitude about victimless crimes. A jury pool in Missoula County basically told a court that they would not be willing to convict a defendant for possessing a tiny amount of marijuana.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this happened all over the country and politicians were forced to stop the war on drugs? That would be a Christmas present for the entire nation.
While we’re waiting for that to happen, let’s celebrate what happened in Montana. Here’s an excerpt from the Billings Gazette.
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. …“Public opinion, as revealed by the reaction of a substantial portion of the members of the jury called to try the charges on Dec. 16, 2010, 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,” according to the plea memorandum filed by his attorney.
(h/t Jason Kuznicki)
[…] and a parent resists a plea deal, I would very much hope that a Waco jury would do the right thing and immediately come back with a not-guilty […]
[…] this in the future and a parent resists a plea deal, I would very much hope that a Waco jury would do the right thing and immediately come back with a not-guilty […]
[…] the next time you get called for jury duty, you know what to do if the government is persecuting someone for owning a gun, doing drugs, selling sex, gambling, or […]
[…] this is why I applaud jurors who deliberately disregard bad […]
My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism -Ann Coulter
[…] haven’t written in any detail about “jury nullification” since late 2010, and it’s time to rectify that sin of […]
[…] haven’t written in any detail about “jury nullification” since late 2010, and it’s time to rectify that sin of […]
[…] Nullification is a check on bad laws and/or bad actions by government. And that’s a good thing. […]
[…] haven’t written in any detail about “jury nullification” since late 2010 and it’s time to rectify that sin of […]
[…] shown in this video from Reason. My favorites are 1) Entitle-Mints, 2) the libertarian doorbell, 3) Jury Nullification Barbie, and 4) Hungry, Hungry […]
Why is it is claimed that if people won't or can't take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
Stasia…
looking for knowledge and seeking a better understanding of the world we live in is never a waste of time… and in the long run… it will benefit you in ways you can’t yet imagine…
the very best of luck…
My family all the time say that I am wasting my time hereat net, except I know I am getting knowledge all the time by reading thes good articles.
[…] P.S. And if politicians fail to follow those principles, then citizens should not feel obliged to follow unjust laws, (and hopefully their peers will back them up by practicing jury nullification). […]
[…] none of my concerns would prevent me from engaging in nullification if I wound up on a jury deciding a drug […]
[…] P.S. If some brave citizen got arrested for busting a bunch of revenue cameras and I somehow wound up on the jury that decided the case, you can probably guess what I would do. […]
[…] Glenn explained. Simply stated, people in government abuse power. And jury nullification, while a helpful check on misbehavior, only works when there is a […]
[…] Another way of protecting the Second Amendment is for juries to engage in nullification and to refuse to convict people for peaceably owning and bearing […]
Any law at all that interferes with the people’s right to put anything into their own body is unconstitutional, including laws against providing anything to other people that they want to put into their own bodies.
They should be nullified across the board, forthwith!
[…] I’ll just add one more way of constraining the legal system, and that’s jury nullification. […]
[…] And remember that you can do something about it, as shown by some good people in Montana. […]
[…] And I’m sure you want to side with these Montana patriots, […]
[…] to “just say no” to big […]
[…] to “just say no” to big government. Rate this: Share […]
[…] don’t pretend to know where to draw the line, but, as suggested by my posts about jury nullification, I fully subscribe to the libertarian principle that “not everything […]
[…] topics such as brutal tax collection tactics, child molestation, Sharia law, healthcare, incest, jury nullification, and vigilante […]
[…] almost certainly would practice jury nullification and vote “not guilty.” To be sure, I say this with some hesitation because we […]
[…] a court might be bound by the law rather than what’s right and therefore rule differently, but we already know from a previous blog post that I’m not similarly constrained. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", […]
[…] court might be bound by the law rather than what’s right and therefore rule differently, but we already know from a previous blog post that I’m not similarly […]
[…] what happened in this case. As Daniel Mitchell notes, the outcome of the Billings case is also a good sign that the American public is still able to think for itself: The good people of western Montana certainly have the right attitude about victimless crimes. A […]