If this is the question:
if you were on a jury for a
> non-violent drug-only
> trial, you'd consider voting not guilty On Principle
> ... UNLESS ... in
> your estimation that person was an (unindicted!)
> "actually dangerous
We have the following predicates:
1) D is charged with a drug crime 2) D is not charged with any other crime 3) The crime as charged did not involve, as relevant conduct, any acts of violence, and no such evidence was presented at trial, It was, say, pure possession or sale.
Would I vote to acquit on principle because I think that the drug laws are unwise, unfair, and unfairly enforced?
Is that the question?
The short answer is no:
1) As an officer of the court I am sworn to up hold the law, even as a juror 2) As a philosophical matter I think that up to a point bad laws passed or or less democratically ought to be enforced; that change should come at the legislative level. (I have a paper on this.) 3) As a pragmatic matter drug crimes are defined as a violent crimes as a matter of law even if no one was shot, beaten, or threatened in their commission because they have a high potential for violence. This is actually pretty well justified empirically,so drug dealers are virtually per see dangerous. 4) I understand, nonetheless, that in certain circumstances some people might vote to acquit against the great weight of the evidence, if we have, say,a low-level offender, first time offense, no violence actually carried out at the scene. 5) I also understand that a juror might be inclined to vote to convict _with_ the weight of the evidence if the defendant were charged with a drug crime where no violence occurred at the scene in that case -- say a buy-bust DEA.FBI sting, where the evidence showed the defendant to be a bad guy. This evidence might include evidence of previous convictions or arrests for violent crimes (the latter is a lot harder to get admitted, the first is per se admissible for crimes within 10 years and of the same general type), charges involving a large quantity of drugs (e.g., hundreds of keys), leadership role or none, dishonesty about what the defendant did. If the evidence supports the conduct charged, I see no problem here, It's just the law. 6) I think there are problems with a petit juror acting as her own little grand juror, but nullification is an old and honorable form of civil disobedience. (See e.g., the old Rev. War Zenger case.) It's also one that as a lawyer I cannot engage in myself, although I might pray in some cases that a jury do it for a client.
Does that answer your question? Have I understood you correctly this time?
--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> > OK, I will answer the question.
>
> Well, you took so long at it that you've lost the
> thread and my point.
>
> Someone said: I'll vote "not guilty" to any drug
> crime.
>
> You said:
>
> > still many people charged with drug crimes are
> actually
> > dangerous and violent criminals.
>
> So I said:
>
> > Er, if they are actually a dangerous and violent
> criminal, they ought
> > to have been charged with an actually dangerous
> and violent crime?
> > Or
> > are you saying you'd convict on an undangerous and
> unviolent crime
> > just
> > to get them off the streets?
>
> So yes of course, if they are charged with a violent
> crime, and the
> government makes its case, off they go. We're all
> with you.
>
> But that's not what we're talking about here, nor is
> it what I think
> you were getting at above. So let me make it clear
> this time: I think
> you sare saying that if you were on a jury for a
> non-violent drug-only
> trial, you'd consider voting not guilty On Principle
> ... UNLESS ... in
> your estimation that person was an (unindicted!)
> "actually dangerous
> and violent criminal" ...
>
> That is: despite being given one question to answer,
> you'd rather
> answer two; you'd be your own little Grand Jury.
>
> Am I characterizing your position correctly?
>
> /jordan
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link
Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $310k for $999/mo. Calculate new payment! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre