What's new

Maybe *This* Is How The War On Marijuana Ends

We the People are a Great Nation

A rural Illinois jury has found one of their peers innocent in a marijuana case that would have sent him to prison. Loren Swift (pictured below) was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and he faced a mandatory minimum of six years behind bars.
According to Dan Churney at MyWebTimes, several jurors were seen shaking Swift’s hand after the verdict, a couple of them were talking and laughing with Swift and his lawyer, and one juror slapped Swift on the back.

The 59-year-old was arrested after officers from a state “drug task force” found 25 pounds of pot and 50 pounds of growing plants in his home in 2007. The Vietnam veteran walks with a cane, has bad knees and feet and says he uses marijuana to relieve body pain, as well as to help cope with post traumatic stress.

This jury exercised their right of jury nullification. Judges and prosecutors never tell you this, but when you serve on a jury, it’s not just the defendant on trial. It’s the law as well. If you don’t like the law and think applying it in this particular case would be unjust, then you don’t have to find the defendant guilty, even if the evidence clearly indicates guilt.

In jury nullification, a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her. There is intense pressure within the legal system to keep this power under wraps. But the fact of the matter is that when laws are deemed unjust, there is the right of the jury not to convict.

Jury nullification is crucially important because until our national politicians show some backbone on the issue of marijuana law reform, it’s one of the only ways to avoid imposing hideously cruel “mandatory minimum” penalties on marijuana users who don’t deserve to go to prison.

Prosecuting and jailing people for marijuana wastes valuable resources, including court and police time and tax dollars. Hundreds of thousands of otherwise productive, law-abiding people have been deprived of their freedom, their families, their homes and their jobs. Let’s save the jails for real criminals, not pot smokers.

:joint::joint::joint:
 

Mr. Bongjangles

Head Brewer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Great post!

Perhaps NORML or a similar organization should be buying up billboards informing people that they do not have to convict someone for what they believe is an unjust law.

Perhaps we should take it upon ourselves to spread the word. How much would it really cost to distribute pamphlets door to door or something informing people of their right to refuse to convict?

From Wikipedia's article on Jury Nullification:

"During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, possibly as often as 60% of the time. This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition.

In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center around drug laws that some consider unjust either in principle or because they are seen to discriminate against certain groups. A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 3–4% of all jury trials involve nullification, and a recent rise in hung juries is seen by some as being indirect evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or fairness of the laws themselves."


A Hung Jury only requires one person to refuse to convict.

I think everyone who smokes herb should make sure they are registered for jury duty in their area and make sure to do it when the notice arrives.
 

Pythagllio

Patient Grower
Veteran
It is historical fact that one of the nails in the coffin of alcohol prohibition was juries refusing to convict their locals. It was of particular relevance in NY state.

13993WeWantBeer3.jpg
 

~fvk~

the Lion is going Guerrilla...
Glad to know there's still some people out there in the masses...
 

ChaosCatalunya

5.2 club is now 8.1 club...
Veteran
It is historical fact that one of the nails in the coffin of alcohol prohibition was juries refusing to convict their locals. It was of particular relevance in NY state.

13993WeWantBeer3.jpg


K++ to the OP, all it takes is a straw to break the camels back, publicise this on the back of the Phelps non-lynching and there is a little snowball just setting off, rolling down from the top of a very tall mountain.

If activists could focus on publicising this to every pot case jury, prohibition really could be on its last legs.
 

Pythagllio

Patient Grower
Veteran
If activists could focus on publicising this to every pot case jury, prohibition really could be on its last legs.

<sigh> So you've never heard of FIJA? They've been around for nearly 20 years. Well, I guess it isn't shocking. It really is hard to get anything done without any money. Too bad potheads are such fucking cheapskates. Always with some bullshit excuse why they can't contribute.

http://www.fija.org/
 

FreezerBoy

Was blind but now IC Puckbunny in Training
Veteran
It "works" always. As a juror, you refuse to find the defendant guilty. Period.

Assuming the Judge doesn't simply vacate (throw out) the verdict, it only “works” as long as the Judge allows you to sit. If the Judge sees it coming, you can be removed pre-verdict and/or prosecuted post-verdict. Not saying don’t nullify, just know what you’re getting into.

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/barkow.pdf

“In 1895, shortly after the
birth of the first major federal agency, the Supreme Court held in
Sparf v. United States that juries do not have a right to ignore a
court’s instructions on the law.

Recently, courts have permitted the removal of a juror
during deliberations when the juror has a different view of the law
than the judge. Indeed, in extreme cases, jurors who fail to follow a
judge’s instructions during deliberations have been prosecuted for con-
tempt. Judges have also pursued charges of contempt, obstruction,
or tampering against individuals who have attempted to inform pro-
spective jurors that they have the right to nullify.”
 

Yes4Prop215

Active member
Veteran
its good to hear he got off, but 25 pounds???? thats alot of weed for one guy to smoke, 25 Pounds is damn near 100 thousand dollars in product.
 

ExEcutioner

Member
50 pounds growing, 25 dry, Its great to see commercial growers get off. btw If you want to nullify act like a typical square and then just find him non guilty. end
 

meduser180056

Active member
Nice that's awesome to hear a jury actually pulled that off. They have to be smart about it cause if the judge finds out thats going on they try to stop it. It's funny cause it's totally legal, but the courts don't want jurors to know about it at all and will go to great lengths to stop it from happening.

Jury nullification is a powerful tool that we can use to force the will of the people on the government. It worked with alcohol prohibition. I know if I am ever on a marijuana trial as a juror I will do everything within my power to hang that jury. O you say he was caught red handed with 50lbs of bud selling to an undercover. Um let me think... Not guilty.

If juries kept hanging it will seriously hamper the governments prohibition efforts cause of all the wasted time and money being put into prosecutions that never work. Then the DA's will simply stop pursuing the cases.
 
Top