Boston juror removed from case for questioning the constitutionality of statute
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.”
- Thomas Jefferson
Via Jonathan Turley: A federal judge in Boston removed a juror, Thomas R. Eddlem, from a cocaine trafficking trial after receiving several notes from the jury indicating that Eddlem was questioning the constitutionality of a federal prohibition on cocaine possession.
Given that it took the 18th Amendment of the US Constitution in 1919 to pave the way for Prohibition, a juror wanted to know from the judge, where "is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession of cocaine today?"
A valid question and possibly a valid argument, but wrong time and wrong place, according to U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young. The judge, concerned that he was witnessing a case of jury nullification, removed the juror from the case and replaced him, after which the newly constituted jury dutifuly convicted the defendant.
Eddlem, on the other hand, says that
he opposes jury nullification and that it was the judge who subverted the legal system. Eddlem, a self-described right-winger and research director from 1987 to 2000 for the John Birch Society in Appleton, Wis., said Young distorted the plain language of the Constitution to justify a prosecution that had no basis in federal law."I was like Alice talking to Humpty Dumpty in 'Through the Looking Glass,' " he said, referring to his confrontation with the judge.
Lawyers cannot argue jury nullification, and, in today's courts, judges regularly instruct jurors that their job is to judge only the facts. Interpretation of the law (and constitution) is reserved to the judge, and if the judge makes an error there is a higher court that can review the case and correct those mistakes.
I agree that the constitutionality of federal drug statutes is not something to be debated in the jury room. But jury nullification remains a right that jurors have. Lawyers cannot utter the words or argue for it, but does a judge cross a line when he removes a juror from a case for exercising his right to disagree with a law? Does removal of a juror who the judge realizes is about to vote not guilty deprive the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury?
