SO VERY SAD..........

He is a father doing whatever possible to save his child… It's unbelievable....

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/dad-arrested-for-giving-cannabis-oil-to-daughter

When will the world wake up?

I dont understand why parents with sick children arnt flocking to Colorado. If my kid was sick, thats were Id be.

Diabolical666 said:

I dont understand why parents with sick children arnt flocking to Colorado. If my kid was sick, thats were Id be.

Click to expand...

I'd get up and move too. Perhaps they aren't aware yet

Easier said than done, boys

We should remind everyone that, in the US, jurors are empowered to nullify laws by refusing to convict. Judges won't let you on a jury if you mention your knowledge of this. They might dismiss you from a jury if you try to educate other jurors on this matter. So, it's best to keep your mouth shut when called for jury duty. But, you're completely allowed to refuse to find a defendant guilty. You may not be able to sway 11 other jurors, but all it takes is one juror to know about "jury nullification" to prevent unjust application of a law. You don't have to explain your reasons for being unable to vote guilty. The worst that will happen is it will take longer and end in a hung jury (and retrial). Best case: the other jurors don't want to spend days trying to get you to change your vote: so they vote not guilty too.

All it takes is one person. Anyone who supports legal cannabis should bring up this topic whenever they can. When laws are unenforceable because prosecutors can't obtain a conviction, laws will change.

az2000 said:

"jury nullification".

Click to expand...

interesting stuff

i'm not sure if we can do this so effectively in the UK now as they messed around with the double jeopardy laws not too long age
so they could have a retrial for the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ardy-law-allowed-Gary-Dobson-prosecution.html

What surprises me is how few people in the US serve on juries with any significant passion for the role they play. A long time ago I was on a jury concerning DUI. The accused was found sleeping it off in his car. By law, being in a car of which you possess the keys constitutes "operating" a vehicle. I might have gone along with convicting him of this except he had a prior conviction and mandatory sentencing laws required him to go to jail for a year. That bothered me when he appeared to have done the right thing (not drive). It was a steep escalation from revocation to incarceration.

So, as we entered the jury room everyone casually agreed "guilty" and were in a hurry to get home. I decided I'd nullify the law because it seemed unjust. I started talking around it, making up holes in the officers' testimony. I was astonished how everyone said "ok, not guilty" within 30 seconds of me starting what I thought would be 2-3 days of stonewalling.

The key is to never mention nullification. Never say anything like "we have the right to simply not convict for whatever reason we choose." You have to talk around it, explaining why you can't convict based upon the evidence. Even if the guy admits guilt, "I think he may be insane. I don't know. I don't trust his confession." Anything that's a "reasonable doubt." Never say it's because you disagree with the law.

There's a very long tradition of jury nullification in the US. The founding generation used it against the King's laws designed to punish rebels. It was a valid form of civil disobedience. Another check and balance. It puts the executive veto power in the hands of the people *when* they operate within the official framework of the judicial system. This is a lot like the militia laws (and right to arms) placing the power to control martial violence in the hands of the people. The original militia was intended to allow community members to "veto" government use of force. Community members could simply refuse to show up, or they could resist a standing army. (But, it had to be done within the official framework of the militia. Not private militias like we have today, which seem to spring up when gun controls are proposed.).

It's interesting to note how the institution of the militia fell into disuse between 1903 and 1930 as the National Guard was created. The powers of that time didn't like how the militia couldn't be counted upon to carry out orders. They didn't like the democratic nature of wielding lethal force. That's very similar to what's happened to Jury Nullification (also called Fully Informed Juries). Today the judge will instruct the jury that all they can do is consider the evidence. "If the evidence is strong enough, you must convict." Like that video said, if anyone mentions JN or FIJ, they'll be removed from the jury (and perhaps put in jail for contempt).

So, those were two institutions intended to put power in the hands of the people on a case-by-case basis.

az2000 said:

We should everyone that, in the US, jurors are empowered to nullify laws by refusing to convict. Judges won't let you on a jury if you mention your knowledge of this. They might dismiss you from a jury if you try to educate other jurors on this matter. So, it's best to keep your mouth shut when called for jury duty. But, you're completely allowed to refuse to find a defendant guilty. You may not be able to sway 11 other jurors, but all it takes is one juror to know about "jury nullification" to prevent unjust application of a law. You don't have to explain your reasons for being unable to vote guilty. The worst that will happen is it will take longer and end in a hung jury (and retrial). Best case: the other jurors don't want to spend days trying to get you to change your vote: so they vote not guilty too.

All it takes is one person. Anyone who supports legal cannabis should bring up this topic whenever they can. When laws are unenforceable because prosecutors can't obtain a conviction, laws will change.

Click to expand...

I was let go as a juror after I said I would not convict a man of selling crack/cocaine within x amount of feet from a school. They were wanting to send him away for life, and that's nuts to me. Meanwhile alcohol makers and distributors are celebrated throughout the world as legit businesses.

I just saw this article on Forbes. It doesn't specifically mention "jury nullification." But, that's what it describes. It's a good example of why nullification is an important check-and-balance in the system. Why jurors were expected to do more than just rubber-stamp the state's case -- which is what's happening in this case:

Eager To Imprison Medical Marijuana Users, Prosecutors Hide The Truth From Jurors

The disturbing part is at the end where it says:


That's the common mindset about jury duty: "Guilty or not guilty. There are no other choices. We're bound by the law."

FTP FTS