by krAzykrAkr01
I saw this story from California about the Federal Gov’t prosecuting a medical marijuana dispensary. It is legal under California State law for these guys to run this business, but the DEA busted in and arrested them. The most interesting part of the story are the statements made by the jurors that are having second thoughts about entering a guilty convction.
In a declaration filed in U.S. District Court in Fresno, Will said he intended to find the men not guilty until he read a summary of a news story that said future administrations likely would not prosecute dispensaries in states that have legalized marijuana for medical uses.
“I then decided to find the defendants guilty, since it appeared as though this wasn’t a serious crime,” Will told the court.
In a companion declaration, Silva said Will’s mention of the news story prompted him to change his vote as well.
“I did not think that this was a serious case and decided to find the defendants guilty, even though I had doubts about both defendants’ guilt in this matter,” Silva told the court.
What the hell is wrong with these guys? If you have doubts about a defendant’s guilt, don’t you have to enter a not guilty verdict? How does it matter if the charge is serious or not? This makes no sense.
The jury trial is one of the most important checks and balances in the Constitution. It is the way the people can reign in an out of control government. The people have three votes in regards to the gov’t.
Our first vote is at the polls on election day when we pick those who are to represent us in the seat of government. But what can be done if those elected officials just don’t perform as promised or expected? Well, the second two votes are the most effective means by which the common people of any nation on Earth have ever had in controlling those appointed to serve them in government.
The second vote comes when you serve on a Grand Jury. Before anyone can be brought to trial for a capital or infamous crime by those acting in the name of government, permission must be obtained from the people serving on the Grand Jury! The Minneapolis Star Tribune in March 27, 1987, edition noted a purpose of the Grand Jury this way: “A Grand Jury’s purpose is to protect the public from an overzealous prosecutor”.
The third is the most powerful vote. This is when you are acting as a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, “the buck stops” with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined! Congress can legislate (make law), the President or some other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and judges may instruct or make decisions, but no JUROR can be punished for voting “Not Guilty!”. Any juror can, with impunity, choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or any attorney in rendering his vote. If only one JUROR should vote “Not Guilty” for any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce a law.
What that basically boils down to is that if you think the law the defendant is being prosecuted under is not constitutional or right, then it is your DUTY to enter a verdict of “Not Guilty”. This is how we the people judge the laws. If medical marijuana cases start getting harder and harder to get convictions, prosecutors will stop bringing these cases to trial. In effect, that nullifies the law. This works for any laws that the people do not believe in.