Pot Patriotism Plus Jury Nullification Equals US vs. Heicklen

  • by Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director December 21, 2011

    George Washington University law professor and longtime jury nullification proponent Paul Butler pens a noteworthy op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times.

    Notable not only because of the important subject matter vis-à-vis the first example proffered by Professor Butler, but also too because of the defendant in the case at bar cited.

    Professor Julian Heicklen has been protesting Cannabis Prohibition laws since the mid 1990s, mainly around the Penn State campus where he was a longtime Chemistry professor, principally by causing a ruckus around jury nullification and protesting without permits.

    Here is a related story NORML featured about Prof. Heicklen in 1998.

    Well, to his ever-loving credit, in his retirement, this 79-year-old freedom loving activist is still–through his own pain and suffering–working hard to inform the public and potential jurors that they (better said, we) all have the right to vote our conscience when in judgment of our fellow citizens in a criminal court of law.

    I too join Professors Heicklen and Butler in what some prosecutors deem a ‘crime’ and that is to educate as many citizens as possible that they don’t have to keep upholding bad laws like Cannabis Prohibition by voting to punish citizens for non-violent cannabis-related criminal offenses.

    American citizens when acting as jurors have the right and responsibility to “Just Say No” to enforcing the country’s failed and expensive Cannabis Prohibition laws.

    Many thanks to John Peter Zenger, Julian Heicklen, Paul Butler and all citizens who fully exercise their rights to nullify bad laws.

    34 Responses to “Pot Patriotism Plus Jury Nullification Equals US vs. Heicklen”

    1. Smoke n toke says:

      Like most lifes lessons, it’s usuaully too late to learn. But if we do what we know is right, it might just be easier like legalization of cannabis to keep man happy on what God already has given . This can be solved on an individual basis only. The rest is interference in an area best left alone.

    2. ace569er says:

      easy to get picked. said i don’t believe it should be legalised. Which was true. once picked, i had to joy of saying how it should be decriminalized like tobacco and alcohol. Which is not legislation. Nullification was next, they pissed and cryed but, I was smarter than them. That’s just one of several ways to legally not perjor yourself, while mind fucking them. my whole family is lawers and DA’s. I know they are there, to pick sure bets, for their win. So just play on legal definitions of words, they use, to easily by pass, not getting picked.

      funny I used to use that knowledge, to get most, out of jury duty. So on that note don’t act like you know constitutional law. They want low intellect for juries. They are easily swaded.

    3. Smoke n toke says:

      Does the prohibition lie on cannabis exist as a real law that is out dated?

    4. TC says:

      Very well put and to the point Mr Evans.

    Leave a Reply