Jury nullification
3jane.
cool idea, I may have to reconsider my lifetime aversion to serving on
juries. FWIW IMO these guys are some of the best crime writers in the
USA though I am not a Wire fan (yet).
The Wire's War on the Drug War
By Ed Burns, Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, Richard Price, David
Simon Wednesday, Mar. 05, 2008
Ed Burns, David Simon, and George Pelecanos at the corner of North
Bond and North Patterson In Baltimore, Maryland
David Johnson for TIME
ENLARGE +
We write a television show. Measured against more thoughtful and
meaningful occupations, this is not the best seat from which to argue
public policy or social justice. Still, those viewers who followed The
Wire — our HBO drama that tried to portray all sides of inner-city
collapse, including the drug war, with as much detail and as little
judgment as we could muster — tell us they've invested in the fates of
our characters. They worry or grieve for Bubbles, Bodie or Wallace,
certain that these characters are fictional yet knowing they are
rooted in the reality of the other America, the one rarely
acknowledged by anything so overt as a TV drama.
These viewers, admittedly a small shard of the TV universe, deluge us
with one question: What can we do? If there are two Americas —
separate and unequal — and if the drug war has helped produce a
psychic chasm between them, how can well-meaning, well-intentioned
people begin to bridge those worlds?
And for five seasons, we answered lamely, offering arguments about
economic priorities or drug policy, debating theoreticals within our
tangled little drama. We were storytellers, not advocates; we ducked
the question as best we could.
Yet this war grinds on, flooding our prisons, devouring resources,
turning city neighborhoods into free-fire zones. To what end? State
and federal prisons are packed with victims of the drug conflict. A
new report by the Pew Center shows that 1 of every 100 adults in the
U.S. — and 1 in 15 black men over 18 — is currently incarcerated.
That's the world's highest rate of imprisonment.
The drug war has ravaged law enforcement too. In cities where police
agencies commit the most resources to arresting their way out of their
drug problems, the arrest rates for violent crime — murder, rape,
aggravated assault — have declined. In Baltimore, where we set The
Wire, drug arrests have skyrocketed over the past three decades, yet
in that same span, arrest rates for murder have gone from 80% and 90%
to half that. Lost in an unwinnable drug war, a new generation of law
officers is no longer capable of investigating crime properly, having
learned only to make court pay by grabbing cheap, meaningless drug
arrests off the nearest corner.
What the drugs themselves have not destroyed, the warfare against them
has. And what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous
substances long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our
underclass. Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we've
been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and
incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American
collective. All to no purpose. The prison population doubles and
doubles again; the drugs remain.
Our leaders? There aren't any politicians — Democrat or Republican —
willing to speak truth on this. Instead, politicians compete to prove
themselves more draconian than thou, to embrace America's most
profound and enduring policy failure.
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being right," wrote Thomas Paine when he called for
civil disobedience against monarchy — the flawed national policy of
his day. In a similar spirit, we offer a small idea that is, perhaps,
no small idea. It will not solve the drug problem, nor will it heal
all civic wounds. It does not yet address questions of how the
resources spent warring with our poor over drug use might be better
spent on treatment or education or job training, or anything else that
might begin to restore those places in America where the only economic
engine remaining is the illegal drug economy. It doesn't resolve the
myriad complexities that a retreat from war to sanity will require.
All it does is open a range of intricate, paradoxical issues. But this
is what we can do — and what we will do.
If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or
federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence
presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or
intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry
Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with
the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a
government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its
poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.
Jury nullification is American dissent, as old and as heralded as the
1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel
against the royal governor of New York, and absent a government
capable of repairing injustices, it is legitimate protest. If some few
episodes of a television entertainment have caused others to reflect
on the war zones we have created in our cities and the human beings
stranded there, we ask that those people might also consider their
conscience. And when the lawyers or the judge or your fellow jurors
seek explanation, think for a moment on Bubbles or Bodie or Wallace.
And remember that the lives being held in the balance aren't
fictional.
The authors are all members of the writing staff of HBO's The Wire,
which concludes its five-year run on March 9
James Pablos
>
> Read more:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719872,00.html?artId=...
cliff notes?
3jane.
>
> cliff notes?
You're right, I should be replying to the accuse yourself of being a
pederast troll.
James Pablos
?
I'm just saying, man, break that shit down. It's a big block of
unformatted text about some show that nobody watches. Help us out here.
Kelly Humphries
> If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or
> federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence
> presented.
You'll have to pardon my interruption, but here in Seattle we're dealing
with a suspect who is accused of firebombing police and fire vehicles in a
garage ... and of pulling up next to a squad car on Halloween and opening
fire, killing a cop simply because he was a cop. And who, during a
previous, more productive life, was a proponent of jury nullification.
Just about the only thing not yet leaked to the press is whether he was
the neighborhood dealer.
> Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence
> are alleged,
< breathes in deeply ... breathes out slowly.... Better! >
> we will -- to borrow Justice Harry
> Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty -- no longer tinker with
> the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a
> government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its
> poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.
The drug war sucks, but finding them not guilty regardless of evidence
ain't gonna fix it. Fixing it will fix it, and it might not happen
anytime soon, but there are ways....
3jane.
The point I got was you find them not guilty if there is no violence
or threat of violence. Obviously this guy would be guilty under any
system. And does that one case invalidate the concept? I'd like to
hear the reasons not to do this the next time I am selected for a
jury, which in this town will happen in the next 6-12 months
guaranteed.
Ray O'Hara
"3jane." <q3j...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b4097882-2ba4-4dc8...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
===================================================================================
I was on a jury for a murder trial.
it was an amazing experience
don't dodge it. trust me.
next to voting it is the most important thing a citizen does.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or
>federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence
>presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or
>intended violence are alleged, we will � to borrow Justice Harry
>Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty � no longer tinker with
>the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a
>government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its
>poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.
>Jury nullification is American dissent, as old and as heralded as the
>1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel
>against the royal governor of New York, and absent a government
>capable of repairing injustices, it is legitimate protest.
I had jury duty last month, and sure enough, I was selected to be on a
jury for a drug case. The charge was one count of selling cocaine to
a narc.
The idea of jury nullification crossed my mind, believe me. Yet,
when the lawyers interviewed the jurors, I felt obligated to tell the
truth about my stand on the drug war. Naturally, the prosecutor
chose to dismiss me from the jury.
Had I been chosen, I have strong doubts as to how I could have helped
bring about a jury nullification. It appeared that several other
jurors had strong anti-drug feelings and would not have understood nor
agreed to the jury nullification concept.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Edwin Hurwitz
but judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) has. What I would
imagine would happen in a drug case where the jury would decide to
acquit in spite of the law is that the judge would then issue a holding
of JNOV where the judge gets to disregard the finding of the jury and
find the defendant guilty anyway. This has happened enough to show up in
the case books more than once and in a case like this, the defendant
could appeal, but I can't imagine an appellate court giving much
sympathy to someone in their position. They have to rule on the law, and
in this case, the law is probably not with such a defendant. What we
need are some appellate judges who are sympathetic to this point of view
and we might get somewhere.
Edwin
In article
<381a17ce-4d77-42fe...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
"3jane." <q3j...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan
3jane.
> bring about a jury nullification. It appeared that several other
> jurors had strong anti-drug feelings and would not have understood nor
> agreed to the jury nullification concept.
But, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, the other jurors don't
have to agree, one person (in theory, I realize in practice this could
get dicey) could cause jury nullification by holding out against a
guilty verdict.
marcman
Interesting . . . I've been called and have to report on 12/1. Never
been before, have no idea what to expect except from what I've seen on
TV and in the movies. Don't know if it's going to be criminal or
civil. I'll let y'all know how it went when it's over.
RandyStoner
> I've seen jury nullification on TV. So far it hasn't come up in school,
> but judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) has. What I would
> imagine would happen in a drug case where the jury would decide to
> acquit in spite of the law is that the judge would then issue a holding
> of JNOV where the judge gets to disregard the finding of the jury and
> find the defendant guilty anyway.
No. JNOV applies only in civil cases. In criminal cases the judge
does not act as the 13th juror.
JimK
<marcman...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Interesting . . . I've been called and have to report on 12/1. Never
>been before, have no idea what to expect except from what I've seen on
>TV and in the movies. Don't know if it's going to be criminal or
>civil. I'll let y'all know how it went when it's over.
The chances are you'll never end up serving on a jury. Typically, the
potential jury pool is much larger than the number actually selected
to serve. I'd guess you've got no more than a 25% chance of actually
serving.
JimK
Joker
What you say is probably correct, more or less, for most
jurisdictions, yet I was called twice over 15 years in the last county
I lived in and picked both times. I'm one of the fortunate few that
gets full compensation for jury duty, so I never worry about how to
get out of it.
Edwin Hurwitz
<5611bfff-7159-4e33...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
RandyStoner <rangy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ah, thanks! Criminal procedure isn't until next semester! I guess I know
where I need to go for help with that class!
Edwin
Kelly Humphries
> On Nov 26, 9:43�pm, Kelly Humphries <kpiscesatspeakeasydotorg> wrote:
> >
> > > we will -- to borrow Justice Harry
> > > Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty -- no longer tinker with
> > > the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a
> > > government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its
> > > poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.
> >
> > The drug war sucks, but finding them not guilty regardless of evidence
> > ain't gonna fix it. �Fixing it will fix it, and it might not happen
> > anytime soon, but there are ways....
>
> The point I got was you find them not guilty if there is no violence
> or threat of violence. Obviously this guy would be guilty under any
> system. And does that one case invalidate the concept? I'd like to
> hear the reasons not to do this the next time I am selected for a
> jury, which in this town will happen in the next 6-12 months
> guaranteed.
I think this guy who pulled a drive-by on a patrol car is not going to get
any jury nullification fans on his own jury. Nor should he. And FUCK now
there's some asshat copycat who walked into a coffeshop and killed four
Tacoma police officers. Damn.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412727_shooting29.html
OK, enough demagoguery.
I spend a minimum 8 hours a day dealing with an infrastructural deficiency
of substance abuse and mental health facilities, and since I'm not trained
as a counselor or DOC officer, I try to be as patient as any random person
they just encountered. They get everything I can muster without taking my
attention away from my actual job at hand <insert sweetbac joke here, and
Google it or ask nicely if you don't already know>.
No threat of violence? I'm totally down with keeping them out of prisons.
Brutal coincidence doesn't invalidate the concept of JNOV. But likewise,
it won't end the drug war. It might catch the attention of state
representatives, if you live in a district that hasn't been rigged to the
point where they're with you, or against you, anyway. It might catch the
attention of perceptive House or Senate members, but ... how many of them
are there?
But, if you write a letter to that State Rep, or Congresscritter, or
Senator, telling them that you think there are changes that can be made
to... say ... mandatory minimum laws ... or local enforcement
guidelines... well, no, nothing will happen right away. Sorry 'bout that.
Still....
marcman
Is there a dress code? All the postcard says is no shorts and/or flip
flops. Planning on wearing clean unripped jeans with clean black Nikes
and a collared, pullover short. Are they gonna throw me out?
volkfolk
This is the first intelligent thing I've ever seen you post
Scot
JimK
Do you want to get thrown out? Try wearing a dress.
JimK
marcman
No, actually, I'm looking forward to doing my civil duty. Never been
in a courtroom before. And if its not jeans a polo shirt and clean
black sneakers, it's my funeral suit. I don't want to wear a suit. I
tried calling the number on the postcard but aparantly Monday's are
busy, budget is low, and after being on hold for ten minutes they tell
you nobody can answer your call, to call back later. So I thought I'd
ask if casual, but neat/clean attire is appropriate.
marcman
Never mind. Jeans and sneakers work. No shorts or flip flops.
Brad Greer
25% is probably on the high side, at least in my experience. I know
many people who have been called for jury duty (and I've been called a
half dozen or so times myself), I know only one or two who actually
sat on a case that went through to the jury decision.
Seth Buttock
>
> > I was on a jury for a murder trial.
> > it was an amazing experience
> > don't dodge it. trust me.
> > next to voting it is the most important thing a citizen does.
>
> This is the first intelligent thing I've ever seen you post
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Period.
volkfolk
How sweet, I've got a stalker.
Scot
Garry the Island Boy
Would you trust your life to 12 people too stupid to get out of jury
duty? I think a jury of your peers should be just that, speed freak
biker? That's who you get. Drunken cowboy? Yep, the same. Responsible
Deadhead? Right again. . .
G.
Garry the Island Boy
It's not all it seems to be. . .
G.
marcman
> On Nov 30, 2:36 pm, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:24:06 -0500, JimK <jkezw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:06:39 -0800 (PST), marcman
> > ><marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ><snip>
>
> > >>Interesting . . . I've been called and have to report on 12/1. Never
> > >>been before, have no idea what to expect except from what I've seen on
> > >>TV and in the movies. Don't know if it's going to be criminal or
> > >>civil. I'll let y'all know how it went when it's over.
>
> > >The chances are you'll never end up serving on a jury. Typically, the
> > >potential jury pool is much larger than the number actually selected
> > >to serve. I'd guess you've got no more than a 25% chance of actually
> > >serving.
>
> > 25% is probably on the high side, at least in my experience. I know
> > many people who have been called for jury duty (and I've been called a
> > half dozen or so times myself), I know only one or two who actually
> > sat on a case that went through to the jury decision.
>
> Would you trust your life to 12 people too stupid to get out of jury
> duty?
Ouch.
Gary, I want to do it. It's not always a matter of not being able to
get out of it.
> I think a jury of your peers should be just that, speed freak
> biker? That's who you get. Drunken cowboy? Yep, the same. Responsible
> Deadhead? Right again. . .
>
There ya go.
> G.
JimK
<garr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 30, 2:36�pm, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:24:06 -0500, JimK <jkezw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:06:39 -0800 (PST), marcman
>> ><marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >>Interesting . . . I've been called and have to report on 12/1. �Never
>> >>been before, have no idea what to expect except from what I've seen on
>> >>TV and in the movies. Don't know if it's going to be criminal or
>> >>civil. I'll let y'all know how it went when it's over.
>>
>> >The chances are you'll never end up serving on a jury. Typically, the
>> >potential jury pool is much larger than the number actually selected
>> >to serve. I'd guess you've got no more than a 25% chance of actually
>> >serving.
>>
>> 25% is probably on the high side, at least in my experience. �I know
>> many people who have been called for jury duty (and I've been called a
>> half dozen or so times myself), I know only one or two who actually
>> sat on a case that went through to the jury decision.
>
>Would you trust your life to 12 people too stupid to get out of jury
>duty?
<snip>
I would if I was clearly guilty.
JimK
Brad Greer
Worked for OJ (at least the first time).
Garry the Island Boy
Two "R"'s Marc. . .:)
G.
marcman
Coming from a Marc with a "c" that most IRL make Marc with a "k" I
should have picked up on that.
marcman
I arrived at the courthouse at 7am. Sat and waited with 200+ other
people, for them to call my number. Three times I was called and
assigned to a judge, and all three times the case resolved before the
trial, so back to the room and back in the pool. Then at 11:30, they
sent us to lunch until 1:15. At around 2, I was called again and
assigned to another Judge. This time I wound up in a courtroom with 19
other people. It was a civil trial, and they needed 7 jurors. A man
was suing an insurance company for injuries he claimed he sustained in
a car accident, however the insurance company for the other driver
didn't want to pay, because this man had had a previous accident and
the insurance company for the other driver in that accident paid off
on the same injury claim, which this plaintiff now says was aggravated
by the second accident. The interview with the judge and the lawyers
was very interesting, and I'm not surprised at all that I didn't get
picked.