If I were placed on a jury and the crime in question was a non-violent drug offense--any non-violent drug offense--I would vote to acquit for the purposes of jury nullification. And I would encourage you to do the same. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is the only morally acceptable thing to do in that situation.
A prosecutor in Texas (who wishes to remain anonymous, heh) says making such a statement publicly is itself a crime.
Hey, whoever you are: when I change planes at DFW, I grab a pint here when I have time. Come on by.
Asshole.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
don't ever go to the dickie's in DFW, it's not as good as the one on Greenville Ave. (or any of the dickie's bbqs). Sonny Bryan's is the real deal, if you can get out of the airport.
I love that the Amarillo jury on reason.com finally found in favor of a straight up marijuana user. Makes me miss west texas.
Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. They don't have the power to actually stop jury nullification, so instead they want to criminalize talking about it. That's like saying "We don't have the power to stop people from making pies, so we're going to forbid their talking about them."
my dream is to get on a trial of a man accused of murdering the rapist of his daughter.
they stopped calling me for service about 5yrs ago. i guess getting thrown out in the first round 3 of 3 leaves a mark on your name or something.
my dream is to get on a trial of a man accused of murdering the rapist of his daughter.
"Yes they deserved to die! And I hope they burn in hey-ull!!"
Why is it no one complains about the other side of "jury nullification": that a jury can bring a *guilty* verdict that essentially ignores the law and the facts? Some get stopped by a judge with JNOV, directed verdicts, and the like; clearly plenty get through too. Not all successful appeals are because of technical matters, and innocent people do wind up in jail and put to death. Yes, juries make mistakes; so do prosecutors, judges, law enforcement, and legislatures.
The idea is supposed to be this: A jury is the ultimate determiner of whether something wrong has been done. There's no sensible way to tie a jury down to a standard that's just rubber-stamping someone else's idea of what the law and facts should result in. Judges and prosecutors like to think that they can remove all doubt, room for error, and opinion from the courtroom. They can not, and should not, do so. Their attempts to do so are worse than any "problem" they're trying to solve.
That jackass prosecutor in Texas should be fired or voted out of office. And it's sure as hell not illegal to foment that. Yet.
Post a Comment