tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295869345625274211.post8698301455406181932..comments2023-12-18T10:15:52.664-06:00Comments on Gillette-Torvik Blog: Marijuana laws take a hit in Montana.Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295869345625274211.post-81696270077947292302010-12-23T16:46:28.714-06:002010-12-23T16:46:28.714-06:00"The hardliners were the folks that said they..."The hardliners were the folks that said they would refuse to convict a defendant even if they thought he had violated the law. This is contrary to the oath jurors take in Montana. That oath says:"<br /><br />This author misunderstands the jury selection process. You don't take the oath until voir dire has finished - that's the point of voir dire to remove people who have a bias and cannot execute the oath faithfully. If the author were right than everyone would be required to sit on the jury because the oath compels them to act impartially no matter what they really think. The judge was correct here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295869345625274211.post-20939582391934860502010-12-23T14:09:59.117-06:002010-12-23T14:09:59.117-06:00no kidding on the plea deal--what gives?? I think...no kidding on the plea deal--what gives?? I think the real issue is that the judge's first name is Dusty.<br /><br />AnneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295869345625274211.post-9702497097618141882010-12-23T11:52:40.144-06:002010-12-23T11:52:40.144-06:00"Something is not right when the consensus am..."Something is not right when the consensus among all the lawyers in the courtroom is that it will be impossible to assemble a fair jury, and yet the defense and prosecution agree to a plea deal which leads to a 20-year sentence."<br /><br />Seriously. Can you claim ineffective assistance of counsel on a plea deal?Mike Mateskyhttp://mikemateskydoesnothaveawebsiteofhisownyet.travelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295869345625274211.post-91122156935888613552010-12-23T10:08:59.097-06:002010-12-23T10:08:59.097-06:00UPDATE: Not even Pat Robinson would be able to se...UPDATE: Not even Pat Robinson would be able to serve on this jury! <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/" rel="nofollow">Link.</a>Bart Torvikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295869345625274211.post-73192752039397846822010-12-22T17:52:26.355-06:002010-12-22T17:52:26.355-06:00Odd ruling by the Judge. Quash the panel and seat...Odd ruling by the Judge. Quash the panel and seat a new one. It is not uncommon to get done with voir dire and then not have enough eligible jurors. I am somewhat surprised the Judge didn't rehabilitate the jurors and get them to recite the stock phrase: I can be fair and impartial. <br /><br />Interesting story, however.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295869345625274211.post-62646394244129873512010-12-22T17:19:36.027-06:002010-12-22T17:19:36.027-06:00I think the real point here is; The public VOTED...I think the real point here is; The public VOTED to make marijuans possession the least priority. The jury pool comes from the regestered VOTERS. When the VOTERS don't get what they VOTED for, .... This is what you get. I mean, come on... Isn't really about what the VOTERS want?You Must Be Highnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295869345625274211.post-91878768459787981812010-12-21T21:28:38.218-06:002010-12-21T21:28:38.218-06:00Clarification on answer #5: this is because lawye...Clarification on answer #5: this is because lawyers are people too.Bart Torvikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295869345625274211.post-4512045970533480192010-12-21T16:51:04.340-06:002010-12-21T16:51:04.340-06:00So many questions, anonymous! Here are the answer...So many questions, anonymous! Here are the answers, in order: <br /><br />1) "exactly why is cannibis illegal?" For a primer on the complicated process of making laws, see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ" rel="nofollow">this</a> instructional video.<br /><br />2) "was the AMA for it"? Not sure, but <a href="http://www.ama-cycle.org/" rel="nofollow">probably</a>.<br /><br />3) "Was there a panel of doctors..." Please see answer to question number 1.<br /><br />4) "What did that report suggest we do with cannibis?" (a) steal it, then (b) smoke it.<br /><br />5) "Are laws for the people or just to keep lawyers busy?" Trick question: both.Bart Torvikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295869345625274211.post-36010635252098679122010-12-21T09:15:55.487-06:002010-12-21T09:15:55.487-06:00Lawyers....the reason why we need justice.
So, ex...Lawyers....the reason why we need justice.<br /><br />So, exactly why is cannabis illegal? Was the AMA for it? Was there a panel of doctors or scientists that recommended cannabis be made illegal because of its harm on society?<br /><br />I also heard that Nixon ordered a report, the Shafer Report. What did that report suggest we do with cannabis?<br /><br />So, are laws for the people or just to keep lawyers busy?<br /><br />This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295869345625274211.post-1001273197758527112010-12-20T23:04:24.475-06:002010-12-20T23:04:24.475-06:001) The real problem here is that there are only 1...1) The real problem here is that there are only 11 potential jurors in the <em>entire state</em> of Montana. And they are spread out all over the state.<br /><br />2) Since when do jurors blurt out things like "Why is the state wasting its resources on a case like this?" during voir dire? Where I come from, that's a sign that a judge is not in control of the courtroom.<br /><br />3) Something is not right when the consensus among all the lawyers in the courtroom is that it will be impossible to assemble a fair jury, and yet the defense and prosecution agree to a plea deal which leads to a 20-year sentence. I see that 19 of the years are suspended, and that he's already served 200 days. But this is just laziness. Call more prospective jurors! Try the case! Do your jobs! <br /><br />4) As to your specific question about the judge's musings.... I agree with you. Fact: prospective jurors will say things to get out of jury duty if they get a whiff that there are things they can say to get out of jury duty. Allowing such odors to linger is, once again, bad courtroom management by the judge. If judges are stern about the juror's duty, and about their oath, the jurors invariably rise to the challenge. They do the right thing, if you let them. Saying, "ah, geez, daggone jurors ain't right these days" doesn't cut it. <br /><br />5) You have hit the nail on the head in pointing out the illogic in the judge's conception of what "a jury of one's peers means." It doesn't mean "a jury of folks who condone the conduct one is accused of but nevertheless are willing to punish it." It just means "a jury of ordinary Janes and Joes."Bart Torvikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com