Pubdate: Sun, 16 Sep 2012
Source: Trentonian, The (NJ)
Copyright: 2012 The Trentonian
Contact:  http://www.trentonian.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1006
Author: Jeff Edelstein

DON'T LIKE MARIJUANA - OR OTHER - LAWS? CHANGE THEM.

I'm a lazy anti-authoritarian. Instead of fighting against the Man, I
just kind of smile and side-step and pretend to be looking at a pebble
on the ground when the Man approaches.

But make no mistake: I don't like the Man. Don't want to be the Man,
either. Not only do I hate being told what to do, I equally hate
telling others what to do. I'd be an anarchist, except that just seems
too messy. I guess I'm a Libertarian, but an arch conservative within
that movement. More or less.

And all the above add up to me being a strong proponent of the idea of
jury nullification. For those who don't know what "jury nullification"
means, here's a quick and dirty definition: Finding someone innocent
of a crime despite the fact they are stone guilty simply because you
don't agree with the law.

I bring this up for a handful of reasons, not the least of which I'm
scheduled to be called to jury duty in federal court. Now, I believe
being forced to appear for jury duty is about as anti-American and
repugnant as the Man gets, but because I don't want to go to jail,
I'll show up and make some kind of scene and end up being kicked off
the jury. One of the easiest ways to do this is to mention "jury
nullification," because if you do, the prosecutor will seek to dismiss
you in less time than it takes to get to the end of this sentence.

Judges hate it also, and make a point to ask potential jurors if they
will uphold the laws as written. Answer "no" to that question, and
poof! No more jury duty for you.

(By the way, I'm not engaging the "but it's your civic duty" argument
when it comes to jury duty. Anytime the government impinges on my
freedom, I call foul. Simple as that.) I also bring this up to just
call attention to the whole idea of jury nullification, as it's not
something you'll ever hear during a court case. It just doesn't
happen. So people don't know about it, don't know it was used in the
1800s to help slaves gain their  freedom  ; don't know the first chief
justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay,  said  "The jury has the right
to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy;" don't know
countless other judges and jurists have stood behind the concept;
don't know it's right there in the New Jersey state Constitution, 
Article 1, Section 6  , reading in part "the jury shall have the right
to determine the law and the fact."

Yep. Not everyone knows about it, and I believe, with every ounce of
me, that everyone should. There are plenty of lousy laws out there
that should be overturned, and if a jury takes it upon themselves to
do so, so much the better.

And last but not least, I bring this up to call attention to the
ongoing legal battle of Ed Forchion, aka NJWEEDMAN.

Yep, the Weedman - who I first met back in 1999 when he came to The
Trentonian and asked if a reporter would like to accompany him to the
state Assembly chambers, where he was going to light up a fat joint
and be arrested for it (I accepted the challenge) - is back in the
news.

I'm not going to rehash his entire " career  " in this space - mostly
because I don't have 300 pages - but he's scheduled to be back in
Burlington County court in less than a month to be retried on
marijuana distribution charges.

Forchion admits to having a pound of weed in his car, but insists it
was for personal use and not to be "distributed." Smart money is on a
hung jury or an acquittal, you ask me, because jurors on Forchion's
many cases somehow, some way find out about jury nullification and
probably - educated guess here - find some common ground in the
Weedman's arguments that pot shouldn't be illegal.

I wish I got called for jury duty on that case. That's one I'd wear a
suit for, comb my hair to the side, maybe even shave the beard. I'd
want to look like a prosecutor's dream that day.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt