What are all y'all's thoughts on jury nullification?

SFC Casey O'Mally — Wed, 06 Apr 2022 13:28:38 -0400

Question for folks who pursue the law as either a career or a serious hobby:

Situation: I am recently served on a grand jury. Under current state law, there is no such thing as possession of fentanyl. Possession of any quantity of fentanyl, even inadvertent or unintentional possession, is charged as trafficking. Which means if you buy drugs for personal use, and the drugs come back from the lab as having been laced with fentanyl, you are immediately charged as a felony drug trafficker.

I am not attempting to say drugs are good, or those buying drugs are harmless, innocent people doing nothing wrong. But in my opinion, slapping a trafficking charge on an addict who got tainted drugs is absurd.

Technically, the individual was eligible for a trafficking charge, and there was enough evidence to indict. But the law itself was, in my opinion, wrong.

Would love to hear opinions about jury nullification in general, or about this specific situation.

Response by CSM William Everroad made Apr 6 at 2022 1:37 PM

CSM William Everroad — Wed, 06 Apr 2022 13:37:51 -0400

SFC Casey O'Mally If the charge doesn't match the offense, I think you are gtg to render a not guilty verdict. It may or may not be nullification in theory, but in practice, most jurors don't dive that deep in the law. They may understand that the law is wrong, but I think in this case you may be leaning towards a simple not guilty for the reason fentanyl may not be included in your state's schedule of prohibited or controlled substances.

They can charge them with trafficking because the language of the law is probably vague enough, depending on your state. But that doesn't mean the state law doesn't have a schedule of illicit substances that should be used as a reference for trafficking.

If this is not the case, I would say if the evidence is clear its just an addict, then jury nullification should be appropriate if the prosecution doesn't make the case for trafficking. It would fall under the inappropriate charge aspect.

For example, if I steal a something (<$10K) but am charged with trafficking stolen goods, nullification would be appropriate because I should have been charged with larceny. In your case, there doesn't seem to be a law against possession of fentanyl, so the DA went went the next best thing.

Nullification should serve as a message to the legislature that the law is not being applied appropriately and if they want to make fentanyl illegal, they could do it.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2022 1:40 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Apr 2022 13:40:18 -0400

So, I am not a fan of drugs. Be that as it may, I am also not a fan of unjust laws. If the addict purchases the drugs that are, unbeknownst to the buyer, laced with fentanyl, then the buyer should not be charged with trafficking but the seller should be charged with trafficking...if arrested, that is. Now, if the buyer turns around and tries to sell the laced drug, then yea I can see them getting hit with that charge....but if it is for personal use with no intent to distribute, then kick the trafficking charge to the curb.

But then, I'm not a lawyer and I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2022 3:44 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Apr 2022 15:44:19 -0400

Your job on the jury is to weigh the evidence in relation to the law as it stands. Whether or not you believe the law is right or wrong is not the issue. That issue you need to take up with your elected officials.