I have written before about ‘jury nullification’, the right of juries to decide that a law is wrong and refuse to convict someone of a crime even if the facts are clear that that person is guilty. (See here and here.)
I said last year (see the post script to this) that drug laws against minor offenses such as possession of marijuana in small amounts are the most likely to be nullified and recently there was another example of this.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.
I have a friend who was called to jury duty last year. One of the questions asked by the judge was “would you have trouble convicting someone for marijuana offenses due to constitutional grounds?” Everyone who said yes was dismissed and sent home, I presume to help prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I’m somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t challenged Federal pot laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. After all, Prohibition required an amendment for the Feds to control booze, which should be more than enough precedent for anyone claiming that the Feds need the same for pot.