Sacramento airport pot patient jailed after felony conviction

[Newsjock]

Source: Sacramento Bee

Matthew Zugsberger, an injured former oil rig worker and medical marijuana user, was convicted today of felony transportation of marijuana for attempting to take three pounds of pot onto a Sacramento flight to New Orleans in December, 2008.

Zugsberger, 34, who had a Mendocino County physician's recommendation for five pounds of pot, was considered a test case for how much marijuana a patient may possess for reasonable personal use.

... After intense deliberations that lasted twice as long as his trial, a jury acquitted Zugsberger of a felony count of possession for sale. But it convicted him of felony transportation as well as misdemeanor possession.

Zugsberger, who could receive four years in prison on the felony count, was immediately taken into custody in the courtroom.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/weed-wars/2010/03/judge-orders-jury-back-to-work-in-sacramento-airport-pot-transport-case.html

[Bennyboy]

1. Wow,

They spent how much money to try this guy? Arrest him, incarcerate him and now we are gonna be on the hook for his care for the rest of his life. The Correctional officers, the cooks, the parole officers....STUPID.

Pretty stupid to get on a plane with that much pot. Legal or not legal. Hope he has lawyers and can tie the courts up with this untilw e get a resolution.

[Uncle Joe]

2. The asinine, dysfunctional, illogical and immoral so called "War on Drugs" at work.

I believe four years is four more than any of those billion dollar embezzling banksters will receive... now I remember they got bonuses for their crimes.

Legalize pot, end the B.S. War on the American People, adult, non-violent drug use should be an educational, medical and personal privacy issue; and not a draconian criminal one.

Quit trying to set new world records for the most imprisoned population here in the "land of the free."

Thanks for the thread, Newsjock.

[Newsjock]

3. I wonder whether those jurors will be able to live with their consciences

Ignorant Americans strike again, this time destroying a man's life.

[Uncle Joe]

5. I don't know as to whether they had much choice, it's the law that's screwed up. n/t

[Newest Reality]

6. There is, and has been, a choice:

Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her. <1> Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law—that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.

This has always deserved more attention and there has been controversy about the fact that Judges refuse to notify the jury of this. At least, if DUers ever get called for jury duty, then can take this knowledge with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

It could be very powerful and useful if it were evoked more often, but it is useless if it is kept in the dark and ignored, IMHO.

[keopeli]

7. thus, people like you and me will never be chosen to sit on a jury

We are way too smart, or rather savvy, with how jury trials work and the authority granted to a jury.

There are plenty of people in the US who understand jury nullification. I wonder how many of them ever sit on juries?

peace

[keopeli]

8. btw

Welcome to DU!
:hi:

[Newest Reality]

11. Thanks for the welcome!

There have been groups that have struggled to push knowledge of this capability forward. It seems that not much has changed though.

I just wanted to put it out there for everyone. Why? Well, it is a very powerful tool that "the people" have -- especially those who think for themselves and and have a sense of justice that is contextual and compassionate.

It seems to me that Jury Nullification is much more powerful and compelling than it may at first seem. If judges were required by law to notify jurors of this right, and jurors used it properly, then the final interpretation of laws, (especially unfair ones with victimless crimes) would rest with them. This is a an available power to the people that is not new and ready to be utilized in many situations.

Of course, that also depends on the mindset of the jurors and how easily they are intimidated by judges, DAs and lawyers, as well as their understanding of how mutable and contextual laws are when interpreted in the courtroom, case-by-case.

[Uncle Joe]

10. I haven't heard of this before but it seems to me any defense attorney whose client

was convicted with the jury not being informed of Jury Nullification would have grounds to have the conviction overturned or appealed as a violation of the VII Amendment, the Seventh Amendment; reads trial by jury, not judge.

I also find some of this reasoning on your Wiki link to be Alice in Wonderland ludicrous.

<snip>


"Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect. <33> In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify. <34> In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." <35> In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). <36> The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification."

<snip>

How can a jury use a power, if they have no knowledge of that power?


Thanks for the link, Newest Reality

[Newest Reality]

12. It was several years ago that I ...

was reading-up on the subject for a friend's case.

The sites and groups that made compelling arguments, cited their reasons, and advocated informing jurors, escape me now.

Some searching should bring up a wealth of info on this and darn, if I had a jury trial I sure would want them to know about this ;)

[Uncle Joe]

14. Let me second, keopeli's motion

Welcome to D.U. and have a good night.:hi:

[bloomington-lib]

4. Wow indeed

First, I'm surprised that someone would say 5 lbs of pot for personal use isn't over-doing it a bit. I'd be happy with an ounce. And don't tell me if I had some painful disease I would need 5 lbs. I'm not sure I could smoke that much in a reasonable amount of time.

Second, why the hell would anyone think they could get away with flying any amount, let alone, 3#s of pot anywhere. And that anywhere just happens to be a place where MM is not legal. What an idiot.

Can he take his pot to jail with him? Does anyone know if the prison population has access to MM in California?

[Bennyboy]

9. They do not have access...

Th next trial balloon I think..

[scentopine]

13. torture is OK, a war based on lies OK - but pot smoking? It just never fucking ends...

legalize the shit and put these law enforcement & their corporate contractor fuckers out of work.