Of course in Canada trial by jury being so rare and reserved for major crimes, jury nullification won't end the prohibition -- politicians have to do it.
Kim Murphy
Los Angeles Times
SEATTLE— It seemed a straightforward case: A man with a string of convictions and a reputation as a drug dealer was going on trial in Montana for distributing a small amount of marijuana found in his home—if only the court could find jurors willing to send someone to jail for selling a few marijuana buds.
The problem began during jury selection this month in Missoula, when a potential juror said she would have a "real problem" convicting someone for selling such a small amount. But she would follow the law if she had to, she said.
A woman behind her was adamant. "I can't do it," she said, prompting Judge Robert L. Deschamps III to excuse her. Another juror raised a hand, the judge recalled, "and said, 'I was convicted of marijuana possession a few years ago, and it ruined my life.' " Excused.
"Then one of the people in the jury box said, 'Tell me, how much marijuana are we talking about? ... If it was a pound or a truckload or something like that, OK, but I'm not going to convict someone of a sale with two or three buds,' " the judge said. "And at that point, four or five additional jurors spontaneously raised their hands and said, 'Me, too.' "
By that time, Deschamps knew he had a jury problem.
"I was thinking, maybe I'll have to call a mistrial," he said. "We've got a lot of citizens obviously that are not willing to hold people accountable for sales in small amounts, or at least have some deep misgivings about it. And I think if I excuse a quarter or a third of a jury panel just to get people who are willing to convict, is that really a fair representation of the community? I mean, people are supposed to be tried by a jury of their peers."
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
3 comments:
James, can you think of any historical examples where jury nullification has been used in Canadian courts?
Also, give the absolute prohibition on jurors speaking out about their deliberations, it seems like we would never know if it did occur.
I do think jurors can judge a case based on the evidence presented in a court. At the same time, I also think that jurors can use common sense to decide if they should find an accused guilty of an offence. By that I mean that if a jury finds a law to be asinine, then they can find the accused to be not-guilty even though he/she may have actually committed an offence. There might be a dumb law such as no parking a horse in front of a saloon on a Sunday which today it could mean no parking a horse in front of an establishment that has a liquor licence. Note, that this could be an animal cruelty law instead of a highway traffic offence. The right to a jury may depend on a province or state involved.
The opposite can hold true with a judge giving his charge to the jury at the end of a trial. Hopefully, I'm using the correct legalese or close to it. In a recent case the judge informed a jury that its members should strongly take into consideration an accused mental condition (which would have led to "not-guilty by reason of insanity" or whatever the Canadian term was. The jury decided on plain-old "guilty." While the judge was displeased, the jurors seemed to use their own common sense in deciding the mental state of the accused individual.
Jury nullification was the central issue in the Morgenthaler prosecutions. Juries do come to (generally) sensible and fair results in criminal matters. The trouble is cost and time -- but if I have a choice I almost always pick a jury
Post a Comment