Pubdate: Mon, 25 Apr 2011
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Copyright: 2011 Houston Chronicle Publishing Company Division, Hearst Newspaper
Contact:  http://www.chron.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/198
Author: Rick Casey, Houston Chronicle

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS IN THE WAR ON DRUGS

Monday I attended a fascinating three-hour seminar on how Houstonians 
feel about the justice system in general and the war on drugs in particular.

No, it wasn't at a university. It was in the windowless, 18th-floor 
courtroom of District Judge Jeannine Barr.

I was one of 60 Harris County citizens auditioning for 12 slots on 
the jury that would pass judgment on a man charged with the 
first-degree felony of possession between 4 and 400 grams of cocaine 
for purposes of distribution.

My first impression was that 60 was a large pool for what appeared to 
be a low-grade felony. But as it turned out, the defense attorney and 
the prosecutor worked their way through 55 of us before agreeing on 
12. Since each of them was able to dismiss up to 10 without offering 
any reason, at least 23 of us were dismissed for cause, mainly 
because one side or both believed we couldn't be fair.

How did they know?

Because by my count about 20 prospective jurors told them so.

The procedure involved first the judge, then the prosecutor, then the 
defense attorney explaining a few facts about the case, some judicial 
principles and the role of the jurors. Then they asked whether any of 
us had a problem with being fair.

Some of the responses were predictable and understandable.

One woman said her niece is a heroin addict and her feelings about 
drugs were so strong she couldn't be fair to the defendant.

Two or three people indicated they believe race plays an 
inappropriate role in drug prosecutions, so they couldn't be fair to 
the prosecution. The defendant was black.

One or two said they couldn't be fair to the prosecution because they 
had friends or relatives who they felt had been unfairly prosecuted.

But some of the responses took me by surprise.

"I was in the 182nd Airborne, and I know that if we wanted to win 
this war we could," said one man. "But too many people are making 
money off of it."

"I'd love to sit down and have coffee with that guy just to pick his 
brain," said Aaron Burdette, the tall, youthful prosecutor on the case.

No Role in Sentencing

Under questioning by Burdette, several others said they believed the 
war on drugs wasn't worth the expense and collateral damage it causes.

Most interesting to me were the four or five people who said they had 
problems with being told the judge would determine the sentence if 
the defendant was found guilty.

"If I don't get a say in the sentencing then I will hold the 
prosecutor to a higher standard," said one. Others agreed.

Apparently these were people who think drug sentences have gotten out 
of hand. The defendant was facing five years to life if convicted.

Burdette said he hears concerns about not being part of sentencing in 
every jury pool where the defense has chosen to let the judge rather 
than the jury decide the sentence.

A few other prospective jurors said they would have a hard time 
believing the defendant was innocent if he exercised the right not to 
take the stand.

"If I'm innocent, I'm going to get up and say so," said one.

Burdette said one thing he didn't hear in this case that he usually 
does is the feeling that if the guy hadn't done something wrong he 
wouldn't have been indicted.

Those who spoke up seemed very sincere in assessing their ability to 
be fair. My impression was that few if any were simply trying to stay 
out of a trial that was expected to last three days. Burdette agreed 
with that assessment.

20 Percent Object

But the overwhelming message was that about a fifth of the pool 
couldn't in good conscience take part because they found fault with 
the way the justice system deals with drug offenders.

They were, in effect, conscientious objectors in the war on drugs.

And Burdette, who has been handling felony drug cases for two years, 
said our pool wasn't unusual.

And what happened? The jury, without me (I don't get to know who 
struck me or why), found the defendant guilty of possession, but not 
of intent to distribute. The second-degree felony carries a penalty 
of two to 20 years. Barr will determine the punishment after hearing 
from both sides on Wednesday.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake