Jury Duty
Well, shortly after returning from Alabama for the Fricke-Nelson (Nelson-Fricke?) wedding, I was able to enjoy my civil duty and attend Jury Duty. Needing to be in the courthouse at 8 AM, I showed up at 7:45 and sat in a giant room with all the other prospective jurors. At about 8:30, they called a group of 45 of us to go and be questioned to possibly sit on a jury. Sadly, this didn't begin until about 10:30 in the morning. I was glad I brought along my little friend Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince. When we finally got underway, we were told that the case was going to be about possession of heroin and intent to distribute. Great I thought, this would be fun. I actually was hoping to be selected! During the questioning, I agreed with both of the attorneys most of the time, but did get into a conversation with them on a couple of points. While I may not be a court stenographer, the conversations went a little like this:
District Attorney (DA): "So if someone has six 'individual serving' wrappings of heroin, do you think they were intending to distribute the heroin? I mean, people don't carry six value pack bags of chips around to consume by themselves, do they?"
Me: "I don't think that that's enough to say that someone was intending to do something. You need more proof than that"
DA: "Well, what if they had 1000 dollars in a bag with the heroin? Would that do it for you?"
Me: "No. How do I know that they weren't going to go buy some, and the person selling didn't have enough? That's not enough for me to say they were intending to sell. Take an alcoholic for exampe. They go into a store and buy a six pack of beer, do I think that he is going to distribute the beer to others? Probably not."
DA: "Ok, so what would be enough for you to say they were intending to distribute?"
Me: (Facetiously) "Well, the heroin, money, a map, and a 'to-do list' that says 'Sell heroin to ______'"
** Laughter from the panel **
DA: "Now be serious. Do you think drug dealers work like that?"
Me: "No, I doubt they do. But I just don't that that is enough to say someone is intending to distribute drugs. Now, say I have an airplane ticket, a bag of luggage, and the car is gassed and turned on. I think you could reasonably infer that I am intending to go to the airport. With just drugs and money, I don't think that's enough to say they were intending to distribute."
*** end of conversation ***
And with the Defense:
Defense Attorney (DeA): "Do you think if someone signs a Consent to Search form, then they should be bound to that signature?"
Me: "Yes."
DeA: "But what if they were coerced into doing it?"
Me: "Well, that's different. They should be held to their signature if they did it on their own volition. If there was a gun to their head, then no."
DeA: "So intimidation can be a form of coercion?"
Me: "sure."
DeA: "Let's say you are surrounded by about 10 cops. Do you think they can be intimidating?"
Me: "Maybe. It depends on what has happened."
DeA: "Ok, here's a scenario: 'You are surrounded by 10 cops, and they tell you you don't have to sign this form, and the form says you don't have to give consent, but you are intimidated and feel that you should sign it anyway. Is that coercion?"
Me: "So the cops said you don't have to sign the form?"
DeA: "Yes."
Me: "And the form says you don't have to sign the form?"
DeA: "Yes."
Me: "Then I don't think you would feel intimidated into signing the form. You were told you didn't have to do it, and if you sign it anyway, you should be bound by that signature"
DeA: "So that's not coercion?"
Me: "No..."
We went on for a while about that. He kept changing the scenario around and trying to confuse us. Well, sadly I didn't get picked, and I don't know which attorney struck me. I was the 20th juror, which meant I had good odds of being picked, but they struck a ton of us. They ended up going until about the 40th juror. I just wonder if the gentleman was found guilty or not.
But I do pose a question: What form of evidence would you need to say that someone was intending to distribute drugs?
posted by Michael @ 12:30 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Actually, it's going to vary by state, but from what I've gathered by watching COPS, the "individual servings" of heroin is pretty much enough to do the trick. Keeping any sort of drug separated into easily sell-able servings pretty much says to me that you are planning on distributing some of it to someone else at some point. Sure, an alcoholic buys a six-pack with no intent to distribute, but that's because that's how beer is sold. Drugs are sold by weight, so you don't really have an excuse as to why you've divided all your heroin up if you're not planning on selling it.
Having never bought drugs before, I was unaware of how they are sold. But if one "individual serving" is enough to do the trick, that still doesn't mean that the guy was intending on selling the others. People have different tolerance levels with drugs as they do with alcohol. What may work for one person doesn't necessarily do the trick for others. And even if each bag was enough to do its job, is it still not possible to have several days worth of material measured out? I can still think of enough good stories of what was going on to give me reasonable doubt on the intent to distribute.
I guess my biggest problem is trying to understand the person's intention. While I can see distributing a likely event, I dont think I can say that someone is guilty of intending to do it beyond a reasonable doubt.
One "individual serving" wouldn't be enough to convince me that someone is a dealer. But several such servings certainly would. I certainly suppose it would be possible to measure out several servings ahead of time, knowing that you and only you are going to be using them in the next few days, but the question then becomes one, as you noted, of reasonable doubt. To me, I think it's reasonable to assume that someone with several baggies of heroin in his pocket is intending to distribute those baggies to the general public. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
It would also bank somewhat on what the law itself says. If the law says, "Intent to distribute is defined as carrying more than three separate containers of heroin weighing more than one ounce apiece," then it's not up to you to determine his intent. The law has told you what his intent is; your job, then, is to assess whether he's violated that law. In your mind, it may be a stupid, stupid law, but it's a law until a judge or a legislature says differently.
Post a Comment
<< Home