Juror Arrested for Smoking Pot
[Guest post by DRJ]
Is this karma?
“Judge Sherman Ross tried to assemble a jury of peers for a woman accused of possession of a marijuana on trial Tuesday. But authorities say prospective juror Cornelia Mayo might have taken that concept a bit too far after she was caught smoking a joint outside the courthouse during a break.
The 49-year-old Houston woman was one of 20 people in a jury pool in Criminal Court at Law No. 10.
Ross said he realized something was wrong when juror No. 2, Mayo, didn’t return from a 45-minute break. Before the judge could file a bench warrant for the missing juror, his bailiff got a call from police notifying him that Mayo was being booked on a charge of smoking marijuana outside the criminal courthouse.
“I’ve had prospective jurors get lost before, but it never occurred to me that they might be getting ready for a marijuana trial by, allegedly, smoking marijuana,” Ross said.
He also said it was a strange coincidence for a court that also sees trials for DWI’s, family violence and many other misdemeanors. “It’s the first weed case I’ve tried in years,” Ross said. “People usually plead out.”
Probably not karma, but it may be poetic justice.
— DRJ
This story would be a lot better if it was a 20-something male slacker instead of a middle-aged woman. We could be tossing around jokes like “Dude, where’s my jury room?” Might even get a Harold and Kumar sequel out of it.
JVW (835f28) — 5/6/2008 @ 6:57 pm“I was doing refersearch!”
Al (b624ac) — 5/6/2008 @ 7:15 pmWhen I was a 20-something male slacker, working as a polling place officer in my home county (in California, where possession was an infraction), I once carried pot with me *into the county courthouse* while returning ballots from my polling place, and took much juvenile glee in being protected by the county sheriff’s department while delivering the ballots.
I doubt I’d have been that brazen in Texas.
aphrael (db0b5a) — 5/6/2008 @ 8:13 pmHmmm. It seems to me that there should be a rule against the arrest of seated jurors.
nk (1e7806) — 5/6/2008 @ 8:25 pmnk: arrested during the trial, sure. but you’d have to have some provision allowing arrest later for crimes committed while a juror, as otherwise jurors would be untouchable; and you might even need to toll the statute of limitations for really long trials.
aphrael (db0b5a) — 5/6/2008 @ 8:40 pmFair enough, but the lady has not been found guilty of anything yet and the undisputed evidence is that the police disrupted a trial and interfered with a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.
nk (1e7806) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:10 pmnk, nothing is absolute. You don’t have a right to a jury of criminals… this juror committed a crime, and due process is being followed in taking this juror off the jury pool. To claim otherwise is absurd. The defendant has no rights that are being interfered with. A jury is supposed to be impartial, not “that one was one of mine, so I should get to keep him!” I’m also very curious how you feel a trial was disrupted by the police, when it’s obvious it was disrupted by this juror you are interested in protecting. Trial was delayed because the juror refused to follow procedure, remember? Throwing her off the jury will help protect the trial from further disruption.
And whether the lady has been found guilty or not as a matter of law, she is clearly guilty as a matter of fact. That’s a better use of your term ‘undisputed.’ Remember, the state has rights too. Rights that were being infringed by this juror.
Jem (4cdfb7) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:18 pmJem: what would stop the police from arresting jurors on spurious charges, then releasing them a day or three later after they’d been bounced from the jury pool?
aphrael (db0b5a) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:22 pmWhatever you say, Jem.
nk (1e7806) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:22 pmSounds to me this was before voire dire.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:24 pmIsn’t that what alternate jurors are all about? And what if they let her stay on that day as she floated around the room buzzed on smoke? Especially if she keeps ducking down in the jurors’ box giggling and sneaking bites of Snickers, Oreos, pork rinds, apple fritters, Jolly Ranchers, Slim Jims, and sipping a Diet Coke through a straw.
allan (20daae) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:29 pmThe way I read it, she was in the jury pool but no jury had been selected or seated.
DRJ (a431ca) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:29 pmdaleyrocks,
I thought it was that the jury was partially selected but not yet sworn in. And it makes no difference. There should be no preselection of the venire either.
nk (1e7806) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:32 pmnk – I’m thinking a question to the prospective jurors about whether they use weed or their views about the legality of using weed might have detected the juror who was firing up on break. Simple.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:43 pmdaleyrocks, 5/6/2008 @ 9:43 pm:
Even jurors have 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination when they are testifying under oath.
Occasional Reader (67d2b7) — 5/6/2008 @ 10:16 pmI suspect she’d have been too high to avail herself of that right…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 5/6/2008 @ 10:30 pmnk, I’m not sure what you’re talking about with Kathryn Johnston. Was she caught smoking pot while serving jury duty?
Or are you just going to post random examples of the police misconduct as though it relates in any way to this case.
Aphreal, what you’re talking about is perfect Section 1983 case, and of course, a great appeal/mistrial issue.
Sorry, this juror is a criminal, and she was interfering with the case by doing drugs and not showing up for the case. The police were arresting a criminal, It’s ridiculous to assert the police were violating civil rights by not permitting jurors the freedom to commit crimes and hide from their duty as the court waits all day.
It’s not absurd to insist that we be sure this woman was doing drugs as she is accused, and I’m sure she’ll get her day in court if she hasn’t already plead guilty to the crime she obviously has committed. Judges have to say “alledged”, but anyone claiming that she isn’t guilty in fact is intellectually dishonest. Of course, it’s ridiculous to think the police would magincally know that this women was going to throw the case to the defense, and arrested her for a crime she didn’t commit just to even the odds slightly… over a case as minor as this. But I’m sure it could happen in a more contentious case.
Of course, it goes without saying that if this were a more serious criminal case, and several jurors were accused of being criminals and thrown off the case, that there would be a mistrial. Not to mention a lot of scrutiny over the accusations on the jurors. I guess it is easy to ignore the obvious and strong civil liberty protections already in place.
Oh well, I’m glad both of these people are in jail. Doing drugs while serving on a jury shows a hell of a lot of contempt for the justice system. If this woman doesn’t have some medical justification, then I hope she gets the maximum sentence for contempt and drug possession.
Jem (4cdfb7) — 5/6/2008 @ 11:05 pmOR – That’s all well and good, but in the process of questioning potential jurors before seating them, the judge and/or attorneys in a case such as this may find the answers or nonanswers, as the case may be, relevant to a decision to whether to seat or reject a juror for the final panel. NK is aware they use juror questionnaires as the basis for the initial questions in Cook County.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/6/2008 @ 11:15 pmthe undisputed evidence is that the police disrupted a trial and interfered with a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.
Bullshit. The trial had not commenced. Jury selection had not been completed. Does the law provided for the selection of a specific set of individual jurors which have not yet been selected?
Is jury duty intended to give jurors immunity in the event they are alleged to have committed crimes while empanelled? Is that seriously the argument that is being advanced?
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/6/2008 @ 11:23 pmI’m surprised we aren’t hearing more from the jury nullificationists in support of every juror’s God-given right to ignore laws he doesn’t like.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 5/7/2008 @ 3:41 amActually, the real question is why aren’t jurors screened out when they are predisposed to not listen to the facts of the trial, but vote not guilty because they have an agenda?
Does anyone think one pothead would vote to convict another pothead on pot charges?
Again, does anyone think Michelle Obama would vote to convict a black person of anything, and shouldn’t such people be dismissed from serving on juries???
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/7/2008 @ 6:23 amI;m not sure Billy Beck frequents this blog anymore… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/7/2008 @ 6:24 amBut I’m sure it could happen in a more contentious case.
That’s my point. If the rules are not the same for penny-ante cases as they are for contentious cases, then there’s a problem; the rules pivot on whether someone thinks a case is contentious enough, and that’s a recipe which is ripe for abuse.
Doing drugs while serving on a jury shows a hell of a lot of contempt for the justice system,
I’m not sure I agree; most people i know who use that particular drug could do just fine as jurors while using a mild dose. Of course, it’s hard to tell from the reportage whether the dose in question was mild.
aphrael (db0b5a) — 5/7/2008 @ 6:57 amaphrael, while I certainly understand what you’re saying about severity of crimes not being relevant, but it is relevant.
This is an exceedingly uncommon practice, pulling jurors off pools because they were caught committing a crime when they were supposed to be in court, and therefore it’s not asking to much to look a the case and note that it’s such a minor case that it’s not reasonable to assume, without any evidence at all, that there is some kind of attempt to screw up the jury. If this were a murder, or even a felony, yeah, I would certainly expect a less casual approach. I understand the absolutist approach to criminal justice, but I don’t expect it. Murderers get more due process than shoplifters. It’s just the way it is.
Anyway, I could argue that further, but there’s not much point if you don’t even agree that breaking the law, while you are sworn to uphold the law in the crucial civic duty of serving on a jury, is a severe breach of respect to the court. I don’t agree with the war on drugs, but I wouldn’t light up at the courthouse. That’s like flipping off the judge, or lying in voir dire. It’s unacceptable.
Jem (d87c7f) — 5/7/2008 @ 7:12 amJem,
The lady has not been found guilty of anything yet. We just have a policeman’s word. And that, BTW, was the point of my Kathryn Johnston link.
The Texas legislature thought that there was a problem with preselected venires sufficient to pass a law about it (Section 35.7).
I can’t find Texas’s “judicial immunity from arrest” law. Illinois has one. An attorney who need not be named was speeding on his way to court. A police officer stopped him. After the officer understtod that he was an attorney going to court, he let him go on, followed him to court, and issued him the speeding ticket in front of the judge.
It’s not really “immunity”. Just non-interference by the executive branch with the judicial branch.
nk (1e7806) — 5/7/2008 @ 10:32 amnk,
Lets posit a scenario… Mayo was standing outside the courthouse, joint in hand, smoking it. A cop smells the maryjane, sees Mayo with a hand-rolled, aproaches, and ends up making the arrest (probable cause). The cop has no idea who Mayo is (I dunno if Mayo is wearing a badge identifying her as a juror or not).
At some point in the booking process, she mentions she’s a juror, so some calls are made, thus the call the Bailiff gets.
Are you saying she shouldn’t have been arrested, if those are the circumstances under which she was caught?
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/7/2008 @ 10:51 amdaleyrocks (#18), the attitude expressed in your comment provides perfect justification for jurors to lie on jury questionnaires. a question known to be unconstitutional, asked solely to gauge the response, doesn’t deserve a true response.
assistant devil's advocate (f82fd6) — 5/7/2008 @ 10:54 amActually, since the failure to answer wouldn’t be used against them in court, only to sellect of unsellect them from Jury duty, I don’t think I see a constitutional conflict at all…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/7/2008 @ 11:16 amScott #26,
I don’t believe that even in Illinois she is the judge’s property. I’m suggesting that maybe she should be. That maybe the police officer should have taken her to the judge and asked for permission to remove her from the jury pool.
I never said that there “is” such a law. I said “maybe there should be” such a law.
nk (1e7806) — 5/7/2008 @ 11:17 amWe’re assuming she was identifiable as a juror to the cop, or that she said she was a juror before booking…
Or that the cop believed her. She did, after all, have a joint in her hand. Would YOU believe anything she told you?
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/7/2008 @ 11:51 amIf serving as a juror gave someone immunity from prosecution during their service, it would make some people a lot more willing to serve. However, I’m not sure I’d want them on my jury.
DRJ (a431ca) — 5/7/2008 @ 12:00 pmOh, I dunno, DRJ. What about the example of The Good Thief? 😉
“And one of those robbers who were hanged blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing; thou art under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds. But this man hath done no evil.”
nk (1e7806) — 5/7/2008 @ 12:33 pmThose jurors are few and far between, NK.
DRJ (a431ca) — 5/7/2008 @ 12:34 pmThis is my ex wife’s mom…damn
wow.. (28da4a) — 5/7/2008 @ 12:35 pmYou’re kidding…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/7/2008 @ 12:37 pmDEAD SERIOUS…1000%
wow.. (28da4a) — 5/7/2008 @ 12:39 pmada @ 27 – It sounds like you have never been impaneled for jury selection before if that is your reaction. Grow up.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/7/2008 @ 2:38 pmnk @25 – Your citation covers the entire panel as opposed to individual jurors. The spirit of Sections 35.16 and 35.19 look like they deal most closely with the situation described in the post.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/7/2008 @ 2:41 pmI agree, daleyrocks. I started this conversation only half-seriously. I took it further because of the suggestions that arrest equals guilt.
nk (1e7806) — 5/7/2008 @ 2:53 pmHaw haw haw haw haw this post pretty much sums it up for the war on pot.
EdWood (06cafa) — 5/8/2008 @ 12:41 pm