PDA

View Full Version : Jury Nullification : Peers Refuse To Convict Disabled Vet



Psychoblues
02-09-2009, 01:51 AM
Amazing, isn't it?!?!?!?!???!?!?!??! The erroneous WOD gets weaker every damned day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction... if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong." ~ Alexander Hamilton, 1804.

'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.'

Maybe this is how the war on marijuana ends.

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.

The American public is very near the tipping point where a majority no longer believes the official line coming from Drug Warrior politicians and their friends at the ONDCP, gung-ho narcotics officers protecting their profitable turf, and sensationalistic, scare-mongering news stories used to boost ratings. They are starting to see through the widening cracks in the wall of denial when it comes to marijuana's salutary medical effects on a host of illnesses and its palliative effects for the terminally ill and permanently disabled.

People are coming to realize that not only have they been sold a lie when it comes to marijuana -- they've been sold a particularly cruel lie, a self-perpetuating falsehood of epic proportions that has controlled U.S. public policy towards the weed for 70 years now. The extreme cruelty of the lies told about marijuana by drug warriors is in the effects this culture of fear and intolerance has in the real world -- effects like long prison sentences for gentle people who are productive and caring members of society.

Because citizens are coming to this long-delayed realization, we are going to be seeing more and more cases like this where juries have chosen not to punish people for pot. As this consciousness permeates all levels of society, it is going to get harder and harder for prosecutors to get guilty verdicts in marijuana cases -- and that's a good thing.

Maybe this is how the war on marijuana ends... Not with a bang, but a whimper, as cousin T.S. would say........................................

Much More: http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/jury-nullification-peers-refuse-to.html

Any Libertarians out there that have a POV on this subject?!?!?!?!?!??!

In the meantime, how about a toke from the Busch bong?!???!???!???!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

DannyR
02-09-2009, 01:00 PM
I'm generally in favor of legalization, eliminating criminal penalties for personal use. That will greatly eliminate many of the problems caused by drugs in our culture, not to mention creating a huge tax revenue stream. Distribution however should be allowed only by legitimate pharmaceutical companies, same as most other legal drugs.

Sounds like the man used it to combat pain and found a sympathetic ear in the Jury, so cheers to them.

Just a question though, how much pot does one need to have to keep a supply for smoking? 75 lbs sounds like an larger than necessary supply.

Yurt
02-09-2009, 01:58 PM
I'm generally in favor of legalization, eliminating criminal penalties for personal use. That will greatly eliminate many of the problems caused by drugs in our culture, not to mention creating a huge tax revenue stream. Distribution however should be allowed only by legitimate pharmaceutical companies, same as most other legal drugs.

Sounds like the man used it to combat pain and found a sympathetic ear in the Jury, so cheers to them.

Just a question though, how much pot does one need to have to keep a supply for smoking? 75 lbs sounds like an larger than necessary supply.

what about alcohol?

DannyR
02-09-2009, 05:34 PM
What about it? Its a legal drug, and private brewers usually have to abide by sometimes strict regulations on how they distribute their product. The days of the revenuers breaking up illegal stills are long past.

I see no problem lowering the drinking age back down to 18.

Note that making it legal to use isn't the same as making other associated crimes legal, such as driving under the influence or providing alcohol to a non-related minor. Those in my mind are completely different areas. One impacts only the drinker, while the later obviously puts many others at risk.

Sitarro
02-09-2009, 06:08 PM
I'm generally in favor of legalization, eliminating criminal penalties for personal use. That will greatly eliminate many of the problems caused by drugs in our culture, not to mention creating a huge tax revenue stream. Distribution however should be allowed only by legitimate pharmaceutical companies, same as most other legal drugs.

Sounds like the man used it to combat pain and found a sympathetic ear in the Jury, so cheers to them.

Just a question though, how much pot does one need to have to keep a supply for smoking? 75 lbs sounds like an larger than necessary supply.

75 pounds is not for personal use, I would have been hard pressed to smoke a couple of ounces a month when I smoked a lot. When I matured more and smoked it much less per day, I might have smoked a half of an ounce a month.

5stringJeff
02-09-2009, 09:41 PM
Good for the jury.

actsnoblemartin
02-09-2009, 09:45 PM
I agree.

I believe personal use of marijuana should not even be a crime.

The government should have better things to do


Good for the jury.

5stringJeff
02-09-2009, 09:52 PM
I agree.

I believe personal use of marijuana should not even be a crime.

The government should have better things to do

Yeah... like protecting civil rights instead of trampling them.

actsnoblemartin
02-09-2009, 09:59 PM
without civil rights, we have tyranny


Yeah... like protecting civil rights instead of trampling them.

Mr. P
02-09-2009, 10:10 PM
I have no objection to Jury Nullification...But 75 LBS in his home for personal use? PLEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!

DannyR
02-10-2009, 12:23 AM
I have no objection to Jury Nullification...But 75 LBS in his home for personal use?From the article: "Loren Swift (pictured below) was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver"

Now I'd like to know more about exactly who he was supplying. Other patients, or just anybody? If the former, ok, thats understandable. Not as if they can buy it legally and someone's gotta grow it (and at least its home grown, not imported from Mexico! Kudo's for Made in the USA! *lol*)

bullypulpit
02-10-2009, 07:34 AM
Hopefully, this verdict will lead to a more sane legal policy with regards to marijuana, especially since it is, arbitrarily IMHO, labeled a "Schedule I" drug.

One would have thought that since the the "party of small government" had been in power for the last eight years, it and other drugs would have been legalized as prosecution for their use would constitute government meddling in the lives of private citizens.

Missileman
02-10-2009, 09:49 AM
Hopefully, this verdict will lead to a more sane legal policy with regards to marijuana, especially since it is, arbitrarily IMHO, labeled a "Schedule I" drug.

One would have thought that since the the "party of small government" had been in power for the last eight years, it and other drugs would have been legalized as prosecution for their use would constitute government meddling in the lives of private citizens.

Well maybe our new "government of the bigger party" will hook you up BP.

DannyR
02-10-2009, 11:04 AM
One would have thought that since the the "party of small government" had been in power for the last eight years, it and other drugs would have been legalized as prosecution for their use would constitute government meddling in the lives of private citizens.

Not certain where you got that idea. Republican party is only interested in small government if democrats are running things.

And they have never been against using government to push their own brand of morality upon the population at large, be it prayer, abortion, drugs, gays, whatever.

I'm fine and dandy voting for a republican who actually adheres to a smaller government stance and wants to cut spending and taxes. But far too often they are completely married to the right wing social agenda as well.

Only party right now that advocates drug legalization is the Libertarians, and I think you'll be waiting a long long time before they ever get anywhere close to enough power to actually pass that legislation.

Trigg
02-10-2009, 01:06 PM
I"m all for pot being legal, but I highly doubt this guy was using that much pot for personnal use.


25 pounds of pot and 50 pounds of growing plants in his home in 2007.

As for these guys, they were probably getting directions to his house.:laugh2:


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.

bullypulpit
02-11-2009, 07:07 AM
Well maybe our new "government of the bigger party" will hook you up BP.

Gave up on better living through chemistry a loooong time ago.


Not certain where you got that idea. Republican party is only interested in small government if democrats are running things.

That was irony on my part. ;)

Psychoblues
02-12-2009, 03:56 AM
You are sooooooooo damned cool, bp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Gave up on better living through chemistry a loooong time ago.

That was irony on my part. ;)

Could I offer you a cold one?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

johnney
02-12-2009, 07:56 AM
I have no objection to Jury Nullification...But 75 LBS in his home for personal use? PLEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!
hes a chain smoker :coffee:

Psychoblues
02-12-2009, 08:04 AM
He may be an unlicensed entrepreneur. Republicans love them and in most states that's a $75 fine and no jail time.



hes a chain smoker :coffee:

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

johnney
02-12-2009, 08:08 AM
Well you know, its Illinois, fucked up gun laws, fucked up drug laws. oh and fuck that pig who gave me a 100.00 speeding ticket on I-80 too

emmett
02-12-2009, 09:45 AM
Was there any evidence that he had sold ANY pot to anyone? Then who cares!

Mr. P
02-12-2009, 10:53 AM
Was there any evidence that he had sold ANY pot to anyone? Then who cares!

I don't care but the law does. I'm sure you know that over a certain amount, 1 ounce here in Ga I think, intent to sell is presumed.

Psychoblues
02-23-2009, 05:05 AM
In the reichwing world, emmie, accusation beats proof every damned time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Was there any evidence that he had sold ANY pot to anyone? Then who cares!

Could I buy you a Peach Julep?!?!???!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues