Appearing in the
S.Jersey Commentary Section of
The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 12, 1999
http://www.phillynews.com
Edward Forchion
I know about "jury
nullification" because of a field trip to
Philadelphia that my parents took our family on in
July 1976. I asked my mother, "Who's that statue
on top of City Hall anyway?" She said William
Penn. But when I asked who he was, she told me to
look him up.
Earlier that year, my
parents had bought us the Encyclopedia Britannic, so
I read about Penn and the trial of his life, which
eventually led to the First Amendment. It was a very
appropriate project; America's Bicentennial
celebration was going full blast.
Penn, a Quaker, was
charged with illegally teaching a religion other than
the king's official religion as taught by the Church
of England.
He pleaded with his
jurors that it was his right as a human being to
believe in whatever he wanted.
The jury knew that was
against the king's law, but it acquitted Penn, and
its members suffered for their decision. The jurors
were tortured, even denied food and water for days;
still they refused to change their minds.
Eventually the jurors
were released, and the concept of "jury
nullification" -- a jury's making a decision
that appears to ignore the law -- was born.
I remembered William Penn
when I was arrested on Nov. 24, 1997. I knew as I sat
in the Bellmawr police station, charged with a
ridiculous crime, that I was going to openly advocate
to my jury that it nullify the law. The law is wrong;
no one should be imprisoned for possessing
marijuana.
The marijuana laws, or
for that matter the whole "War on Drugs,"
are a violation of our Bill of Rights. I have never
complied with the marijuana laws; compliance is
acceptance.
I have always regarded
the laws as too intrusive. Who gave the State of New
Jersey, the federal government or their stooge police
agencies the authority to regulate what a citizen can
put in his body?
As a Rastafarian
believer, I espouse the benefits of marijuana; thus
I, too, am now going to face a jury because of my
religious views -- just like William Penn.
Although I have always
taken this view, it wasn't until I became involved in
the legalize medical marijuana movement that I
decided to advocate breaking an unjust law.
I've had people tell me
that the only reason I'm squealing so loudly is
because I was caught. So what? Do you think Betty
Ford cared about having a drug treatment center
before she got addicted to legal drugs that are far
more harmful than marijuana?
Jury nullification is a
constitutionally acceptable function of a jury, but
you can bet the prosecutors in Camden County who want
to send me to prison for 30 years, don't want the
jury to know that.
The prosecutors don't
want the jury to know its rights, but that's common
for government workers. Whether they are Internal
Revenue Service agents, Environmental
Protection Agency functionaries or workers in some
other government agency, they believe that only what
the government says is law is law. Yet the government
is supposed to be ruled by the people. The people are
sovereign not the Government!
I'm Rastafarian. My
religion recognizes the benefits of marijuana; it is
a sacrament in our faith, so the marijuana laws
violate my right to religious freedom.
The Bill of Rights says
Congress shall not make a law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. Yet that is exactly what marijuana
laws do to all whose religions regard marijuana as a
sacrament.
Why were christian, and
catholics churches given alcohol exemptions during
the last prohibition. Why are Native Americans
allowed to use peyote? Because of their First
Amendment rights. Yet I'm denied my right to smoke
marijuana, which is far less addictive or dangerous
than peyote, or alcohol.
In 1997, Gov. Whitman
signed a law making the intent to distribute 25 or
more pounds of marijuana a first degree crime. I, as
an open advocate of marijuana legalization, was one
of the first individuals arrested under this law.
This is the perfect avenue for jury
nullification.
Last year, I ran for
Congress and the Camden County Board of Chosen
Freeholders under the Legalize Marijuana Party (
www.njweedman.com ) banner as a way to reach my
potential jurors.
This year,
I'm again on the ballot, for (NJ) State
Assembly in the 8th District, as well as for the
Office of Camden County Freeholder. I will espouse
the concept of jury nullification as well as
marijuana legalization as ways to end the War on
Us.
Response to my Editorial
| Philadelphia Inquirer
July 20th, 1999 Superior
Court juries need to know Jury Rights
While I may not approve
of the lifestyle of Edward Forchion (July 12,
"Is marijuana law in U.S.wrong? Let a
jury decide"), or adhere to his
religious practices, I do agree with his
claim that jury nullification is the final,
most forceful weapon against shortsighted and
oppressive government regulation.
Jury nullification is
the power of a jury to disregard the evidence
presented at trial and acquit an otherwise
guilty defendant because the jury objects to
the law that the defendant violated or to the
application of the law to that defendant. It
is an indispensable political right in a
free, self-governing republic.
Currently, jurors
serving in New Jersey Superior Courts are
left in the dark regarding their power and
right to pass on issues of law and fact in
criminal prosecutions. And although only
three other state constitutions (Maryland,
Georgia and Indiana) explicitly protect the
right and power of juries to nullify the law,
I would agree that the New Jersey
Constitution implicitly recognizes jury
nullification and commands that jurors be
instructed regarding their proper function.
First, our state
constitution contains a provision that
details in plain language the principle that
all political power originates with the
people. Political power necessarily includes
the authority to pass on the fairness of the
law and to refuse to enforce those that are
nonobjective, capricious or oppressive.
Second, the New Jersey
Supreme Court has traditionally offered
greater constitutional protections to
individuals under the state constitution than
those recognized under the Bill of Rights.
Our state constitution's guarantees to a
trial by jury, the right to counsel,
protection of due process, and understandings
of fundamental fairness should all include
the right of a defendant in a criminal
prosecution to inform those chosen to judge
him of their power and right to nullify the
law.
Third, our legal
traditions militate in favor of instructing
our juries regarding the ability to reject
the law. Not only has the power been
recognized at common law and during the
American colonial period, jury nullification
was also codified and guaranteed in this
state's first Article of Rights and
Privileges in the Constitution of 1844 in
prosecutions for libel.
I would
urge, therefore, that New Jersey jurors be
informed of their right to be judges of both
facts and law. In the alternative, I would
recommend defendants be allowed to argue to
the jury explicitly that it declare the law
null.
David Marcos Ragonese, esq
dsragonese@aol.com
Haddon Heights
|
Nov. 1,
1999 - Big Case update!
|
David Ragonese the attorney who responded to
my July 12th 1999 Commentary, (above) in the Philadelphia
Inquirer unexpectedly showed up at my hearing
before Judge Brown, today (Nov. 1st, 1999). He
asked Judge Brown and Jaime Kaighe, if he
could sit second seat to Mr Kaighe. He wanted
to help me with my JURY
NULLIFICATION DEFENSE.
I
talked to Mr Kaighe about this he seemed to
want the asst but said he would have to work
it out with others so I'm waiting too! I'm
not sure what Judge Browns said or if the
Public Defender's Office has to approve
it.
I'm not going to get my hope's up high until
I hear the decision, but I really would like
to see Mr. Ragonese on the case as well. I
guess we will know on Dec 20th, at my next
hearing.
|
RAGONESE
DENIED REQUEST TO ASST and FIRED
| Somehow, during meetings between
the legal power's that be around here, it was
decided that Dave couldn't help me. Then he
was fired as well, according to Mr. Kaigh,
when I asked Mr Kaigh if the two were
connected he said, "he didn't think
so", I'm not so sure!
David then asked me to remove his name and
comments from my website, and I haven't heard
from him since!!!
Sorry Dave it's just
all a part of the plan and the conspiracy to
prevent me from using my LEGAL DEFENSE - OPEN
ADVOCATION of JURY NULLIFICATION and your
requesting to help me and then being denied I
beleive to be a part of it, and as a
quasi-internet JOUNALIST, I must keep it on my site
to present the facts and to accuratedly
depict what has happened. Later I'm sure it will be part of my appeal.
TRIAL-COVERAGE
|
EDWARD "njweedman"
FORCHION
NJ
njweedman@yahoo.com
