Jury Duty: Moral Quandry

[TheFeniX]

So, Tuesday was fun. Got to hang around a courthouse all day and made a whopping $6 doing so. But really, more to the point, it actually got my heart rate elevated because I got into a panel on likely the worst case for me personally because I had no idea how I would cast my vote at the end of the day.

Anyways, we're sat down in front of some High School kid who got busted for possession of Pot. And in Texas, that means less than 2oz with no intent to sell and he wasn't actually smoking at the time. However, in Texas, a conviction for possession is a life-time thing, even though it's only a Class B Misdemeanor. There's also the stigma of pot in general.

So, I'm already kind of "what the fuck would I do if picked?" and the prosecutor asks me, "How do you feel about Pot" and I have no fucking idea what to say. No pithy remark. No, nothing. I stammered out a "I, uh... don't even really think it's a crime?" (this is after they explained what the charges actually entailed, also I broke myself of uh/um years ago, so this came off as really grating, at least to me). "Pot being illegal in the state of Texas, do you believe people should be punished for possessing it?" I responded "Well, I don't use the stuff, but, uh... I wonder why I'm, uh we're, even here for some pot." "What do you mean?" (I finally grew some stones): "I think this is a waste of taxpayer money."

I was then asked if, the state could prove beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. HS kid possessed marijuana, could I follow the law and vote to convict.

If I could have seen the look on my own face, I probably would have laughed myself to death. Even though I was pretty sure if things got this far because this kid was guilty, I couldn't tell you either way if I could convict him for this stupid shit because why are we wasting taxpayer money for a bag of weed? After about 3 seconds of silence, the defender objected and they had this meeting up by the judge and they just skipped me after that.

So, my question is: WTF should I have done if picked? Now, the defender started talking about illegal search and seizure, so I probably had an "out" because I don't play that shit and despise cops searching people without cause. But, had that not been an issue, I couldn't find myself convicting, even though I was almost positive they could prove he had pot. As far as I know, you can't get in shit for voting your conscience, but judges lay it on real thick that you have to follow the law. But, explaining that the all the other jurors who are like "the law is the law" would suck. If picked, I probably would have had to inform the judge that there's no way I could convict someone, even in the face over overwhelming evidence, and they likely would have booted me off the jury anyways.

I mean, we're really going to fuck some stupid high school kid's life up because of pot? Meanwhile, even though the laws have become a lot stricter over the years, Drunk fucking DRIVING doesn't have near the stigma pot does? They were talking up to 1 year in jail (not prison) and a $4,000 fine for a juvenile. Insanity.

Unrelated, but funny to me: I went through the metal detector and the officer asked me to explain the little black box in the scanner:
Me: "Oh, those are electronic cigarettes."
Officer: "Ok. Well, look at this"
He turned the screen my way.
Me: "Those look like bullets."
He smiled and said "Yea, that's what I was thinking."
Me: "Maybe someone should leave them in the car next time?"
Officer: He paused: "Someone else might think that would be a good idea."

[Borgholio]

Being on a jury is a bit of a pickle. I've been on them twice. Once was a simple battery case against a suspect who was resisting arrest. The second was a church suing the city because there was so much trash in the alley behind the church...it caught on fire and burned the church down. We had to find in favor of the city and the church got no money. Why? In the end, it was determined that the 6-foot setback from the alley was actually church property and it was THEIR responsibility to keep it clean. Had they kept their property clean, the building would not have burned.

Did we WANT to give the church money? Yes.

Did we actually give them money? No.

Why?

According to the letter of the law, the church did not keep their property clean and the fire damage was a result of that.

Sucks ass but it's what we had to do. In your case, you have an obligation to rule based on whether a law was broken...not how you feel.

[TheFeniX]

Sucks ass but it's what we had to do. In your case, you have an obligation to rule based on whether a law was broken...not how you feel.

The difference is that you felt someone was at fault. And a "crime" of some sort did actually take place. I do not consider "having pot in low quantities" a crime. Selling, most likely. Using while operating a vehicle or while you have some type of responsibility (such as watching children or working a job where lives can be lost): definitely.

In your case, I would have no objection to voting the way you did, unless the city had obfuscated their responsiblity as they sometimes do with easements because they'll take whatever path costs them less money. But if it's shown that the church owned the property, then it's easy to vote for it being their responsibility.

[Tribble]

Do Texas trials involve juries all the time? What's the penalty if the defendant was found guilty? It seems odd to have a full jury trial for what appears to be a relatively minor offence.

[Borgholio]

The difference is that you felt someone was at fault. And a "crime" of some sort did actually take place. I do not consider "having pot in low quantities" a crime. Selling, most likely. Using while operating a vehicle or while you have some type of responsibility (such as watching children or working a job where lives can be lost): definitely.

Right and I agree with you regarding the severity of the crime. I do not consider having a few ounces of pot to be a big deal. Certainly there are way more important things the city should spend it's time and money on than enforcing what amounts to be a victimless crime. But in this case, if it can be proven the kid had the pot, and if having the pot is a crime, then...well...he IS guilty, whether or not you agree with the law.

[TheFeniX]

Right and I agree with you regarding the severity of the crime. I do not consider having a few ounces of pot to be a big deal. Certainly there are way more important things the city should spend it's time and money on than enforcing what amounts to be a victimless crime. But in this case, if it can be proven the kid had the pot, and if having the pot is a crime, then...well...he IS guilty, whether or not you agree with the law.

There's so many things that used to be illegal, that are not now, because them being illegal was stupid. I could not in good conscience put someone at the mercy of a judge because they broke the law when I don't agree with the law. Even if I did agree with the law, Texas drug penalities are especially punitive in the long run, even if there's no jail or fines involved. This information was given to me by the defender (and was not objected to by the prosecutor): it's a life-time thing in Texas that any law-enforcement, institute of high education, or future employer can access your conviction. And this is for a misdemeanor.

Look at the classification: Beer and tobacco is the same as a traffic ticket. Some pot? Serious Business.

If the Texas legislature won't step up and stop wasting tax-payer money, then I consider nullification a valid response. Especially when the only "victim" exists in a long drawn out explanation of how drug dealers kill X or do Y. I'm not even doing it out of some semblance of courage, only that I, personally, could not ruin some dumb kids future education and job prospects over some pot, especially when if he had been caught with alcohol and cigarettes, he wouldn't be facing the same kind of bullshit.

[Borgholio]

Again, I agree with you. It makes no sense.

*sigh* I guess it's my own moral code that says it's not ok to say someone is not guilty when it's clear they are.

With that said, however, I'd have to say that if you want a way out of this, then listen carefully to the defense. If they cast doubt on if the pot was even his or if he even knew it was there, then there's your ticket. Reasonable doubt. Not a lawyer here, but as I understand it, you can not be found guilty of possession if you honestly did not know the stuff was there. If it was planted, or a friend left it there and never told him about it, then it's not really his fault. If the defense makes those arguments, then you can choose to believe them and vote not-guilty and keep your conscience intact.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'm surprised/amused by the fact that is is being tried by a jury. Here in Britain getting caught with an amount that small would get you in front of a magistrate at most, possibly just a fine. But I guss the whole "War on Drugs" and "zero tolerance" crap makes it serious business.

[Borgholio]

I'm surprised/amused by the fact that is is being tried by a jury. Here in Britain getting caught with an amount that small would get you in front of a magistrate at most, possibly just a fine. But I guss the whole "War on Drugs" and "zero tolerance" crap makes it serious business.

It's a Texas thing. Here in CA it's (AFAIK) not even a misdemeanor, just a fine if it's small "personal" amounts. It's only a misdemeanor if it's large enough for more than personal use, and a felony if you're obviously a producer or transporter with bricks of stuff in the trunk.

And of course in other states it's quite legal so it only goes in front of a judge if you're DUI or something like that.

[Tribble]

Does this particular charge count as part of some kind of the "three strikes" rule? If that were the case I would probably request a trial by jury if it's available.

[TheFeniX]

I'm surprised/amused by the fact that is is being tried by a jury. Here in Britain getting caught with an amount that small would get you in front of a magistrate at most, possibly just a fine. But I guss the whole "War on Drugs" and "zero tolerance" crap makes it serious business.

You can chose a trial by jury for any criminal charge in Texas (or anywhere in the US AFAIK). It was the defendant's choice to go to trial as the judge did mention something about a plea not being accepted. Likely because a guilty verdict of any kind goes on his record permanently.

But 10 to 1, they are pushing this in order to not look soft on drugs. Also, that for some reason, a lot of states have started treating juveniles like adults by letting minor infractions lead to permanent consequences. From what I remember growing up, any look into a person's criminal record when they were <18 used to require a court order. But now, it's basically public information when it comes to drug use/possession.

My tax dollars at work.

Does this particular charge count as part of some kind of the "three strikes" rule? If that were the case I would probably request a trial by jury if it's available.

We don't have that in Texas and that only counts for felonies from what I know.

[TheFeniX]

With that said, however, I'd have to say that if you want a way out of this, then listen carefully to the defense. If they cast doubt on if the pot was even his or if he even knew it was there, then there's your ticket. Reasonable doubt. Not a lawyer here, but as I understand it, you can not be found guilty of possession if you honestly did not know the stuff was there. If it was planted, or a friend left it there and never told him about it, then it's not really his fault. If the defense makes those arguments, then you can choose to believe them and vote not-guilty and keep your conscience intact.

My reply to this got eaten, sorry:

I did not get selected, likely due to my response to the prosecutor. That said, it still impacted me in that even if proved 100% to me that he had drugs, I am torn between respect for the law and just how fucking stupid Texas drug laws are.

It's like the Texas laws against vibrators (because Texas hates happy women?): even if you could prove to me a woman (or man, really) owned one (or multiple): would you really expect me to throw her in jail? Or fine her? Or, if it was the same as drug laws, label her a sexual deviant the rest of her life and have any prospective employer be able to black list her?

[Simon_Jester]

I've only been on a jury once- it was an unpleasant experience because it was a civil trial where in my honest opinion the plaintiff deserved money. But her lawyer managed to present the case in a seemingly dishonest way and effectively convinced the bulk of the jury that they were lying about a particular detail.

I can't shake the feeling that the plaintiff would have gotten money if her lawyer had been less blatantly sleazy, and/or a few people involved had a better grasp of geometry in that case...

[Starglider]

I would have answered noncomitally ('I have to assess each situation on the facts', 'I believe in a just society') and then jury-nullified. The prosecutor has the desire but not the right to pack the jury with slavering paleoconservatives.

When I did jury service I heard two relatively straightforward cases; one was a fairly clear case of stabbing that almost failed to convict due to police incompetence, the other one was a supposed assault that looked like an incompetent frame-up job, certainly far too weak to convict.

[Broomstick]

They want jurors that have not yet made up their minds. That's an important point. If you honestly feel that, no matter what is presented in court, your vote is going to be X or Y then you've effectively made up your mind already. For this instance, you felt that you couldn't convict someone of the crime of possessing pot no matter what the evidence presented, no matter how guilty they were, because you don't feel it should be a crime. Well, OK, they don't want you on the jury, probably even less than someone convinced even before the trial gets started that the defendant is guilty.

So, next time, if there is a next time, simply say "I can't convict someone of this since I don't think it should be a crime. I can tell you right now I'm going to say "not guilty" no matter what." and they'll tell you to go home.

Rather like they did this time.

The room couldn't have been full of complete idiots. They no doubt figured out where you stood on the matter.

Or you can keep that opinion to yourself, sit through the trial and vote your conscience - but if you're the only one on the jury to feel that way you could be subjected to considerable peer pressure. It is a little dishonest in that you're supposed to make a decision based on the evidence presented at trial but if you're willing to go to the wall to correct what you feel is an unjust law that's your prerogative. Or maybe you could sway the rest of the jury with your insightful arguments.

When I was picked to sit on a jury and we were all sitting in the deliberation room a day or two later we realized that the questions asked of the jury pool had all been designed to eliminate anyone who had kids of their own or who lived or worked within 5 miles of a particular intersection in Chicago. As it happened, two of us were still very familiar with the area and wound up sketching a diagram of the intersection for the rest of the jury (it was a case involving a traffic accidents). The whole experience was interesting and a little bit scary.

[Borgholio]

I did not get selected, likely due to my response to the prosecutor. That said, it still impacted me in that even if proved 100% to me that he had drugs, I am torn between respect for the law and just how fucking stupid Texas drug laws are.

Well I think that answering honestly during jury selection is the best you can do. Saying you disagree with the law and don't believe he was guilty is better than going on a jury knowing you're going to disregard instructions from the judge and ignore evidence presented.

It's like the Texas laws against vibrators (because Texas hates happy women?): even if you could prove to me a woman (or man, really) owned one (or multiple): would you really expect me to throw her in jail? Or fine her? Or, if it was the same as drug laws, label her a sexual deviant the rest of her life and have any prospective employer be able to black list her?

Yeah another bullshit law. If I was asked how I felt about sex toys being restricted or regulated, I'd just answer honestly about how often I've visited The Pleasure Chest in Santa Monica. Let them know straight up that I'm on the defendant's side so if I get put on the jury anyways, it's their own damn fault.

[General Zod]

You don't want to run the risk of setting yourself up for perjury. If you flat out tell them how you feel on the subject then there's no risk of getting yourself in trouble later if you told them one thing but voted another.

[Iroscato]

It's like the Texas laws against vibrators

I'm...sorry? Is this an actual thing that exists? Or are you simply joking? I'm too scared to google it in case it's real...

[Broomstick]

It's real.

Frequently ignored as well but yes, it's real.

[Ahriman238]

Listen to Broomstick Fenix, you did right in being up-front about your objections. After that bit of civic duty, it's out of your hands. But if you can't be impartial, even because you refuse to convict on a stupid law for moral purposes, you owe the court an honest answer.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Every jury trial I've been part of, and I've been part of many, the judge always place emphasis on the jurors being truthful about their positions on these matters. I don't think you should feel torn at all, Fenix. I would have done the same thing you did...if by some miracle they didn't immediately cross me off the list when inform them that I'm a cop.

[JLTucker]

I'd have lied, got on the jury, and caused a mistrial.

[TheFeniX]

Thanks for the replies.

I never considered lying or concealing information in the voir dire. I was mainly concerned with the issue of convicting, even if guilty, of a law I thought was bullshit. When asked directly by the prosecutor if I could convict if convinced 100% of the defendant's guilt, at that particular moment, the best answer I would have been able to come up with it "I don't know." Thinking about later, I couldn't see myself convicting under any circumstances that the Texas "possession of Marijuana" law pertains to as it's pretty specific, even if the punishment wasn't so punitive.

Another prospective juror put it better than I could "I don't think drug use is a criminal issue, I think it's a health issue." Good man... he didn't get picked either.

I think my real stress was coming from, if picked, my first trial I ever served on a jury... I'd basically be voting to nullify. That wasn't as cool a feeling as I thought it would be.

[JLTucker]

In all seriousness, you did the right thing. I'm glad you weren't the only one who thinks the law is bogus in this regard. Maybe prosecutors will notice this if it becomes a trend.

[Purple]

In all seriousness, you did the right thing. I'm glad you weren't the only one who thinks the law is bogus in this regard. Maybe prosecutors will notice this if it becomes a trend.

Would that really make a difference? I am not familiar with the american justice system but I would expect that it is the duty of everyone involved be that the judge, jury, prosecutors or others to enforce the law to their best of their ability regardless of their personal opinions on the subject.