|
|
There is a tactic we can use in this cause, but it is not widely known. In a criminal trial the jury has the right, in fact the responsibility, to judge the merits of the law as well as the facts in the case. This concept, known as "jury nullification", has been a basic right of jurors as far back as the signing of the Magna Carta. When William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, was still in England he was charged with the crime of preaching the Quaker religion. The jury ruled that the law was unjust, despite the fact that the judge held them for a several days without food or water demanding that they find Penn guilty. The jurors stood by their verdict and were fined and imprisoned for their actions until England's highest court ruled that they had a right to judge the law. In the American colonies John Peter Zenger was tried for seditious libel when his paper printed true, but damaging, stories about the Royal Governor of New York. The jury was told that truth was no defense, but Zengers attorney told the jury their rights and the story of William Penns trial. The jury acquitted Zenger. Later, the right of jurors to judge the merits of the law resulted in acquittals of people tried under the Fugitive Slave Law, and helped end alcohol prohibition. In the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 [1972])
No court has yet ruled that the jury does not have this power, but courts have ruled that jurors need not be told of their rights. In fact, often judges will lie to the jury, telling them they must apply the law. Recently a California judge found that the jury room contained booklets for jurors, which included their rights to judge the merits of the law. He ordered the books removed from the jury room and had them burned. Few lawyers are willing to risk being held in contempt for telling jurors their rights.
So how does this apply to the drug laws? If you are charged with the crime of changing your brain, or botanical crimes, or whatever, demand a jury trial and find a lawyer who will tell the jury their rights. The link below for the Fully Informed Jury Association lists contacts in most states who can help. If you are called to jury duty you will probably be asked a series of questions regarding your views on the matter at hand and whether or not you will be able to apply the law as the judge instructs you. My advice in that situation is to do what the judge does -- lie. And when its time to vote, just say "Not Guilty".
3088