Legal News

Boston Juror, Judge Go Toe-to-Toe Over Nullification Issue

By Dan Slater

Back in March, we blogged a Time article written by the creators of “The Wire.” The piece described the country’s “unwinnable drug war” as having turned from “a battle against dangerous substances” into “a venal war on our underclass.” As part of an admittedly incomplete solution, the “The Wire” writers called for widespread jury nullification — a practice that they defined as refusing to “collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest.”

A week after the Time article appeared, Thomas Eddlem was part of a jury that began deliberations in Boston federal court in the retrial of Robert Luisi, a reputed mafia lieutenant, for cocaine trafficking. During deliberations, Eddlem reportedly sent a note to the judge, William Young, asking, where “is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession of cocaine today?”

Two hours later, according to a recent memorandum written by Judge Young (pictured), the jury sent him two more questions: First, if a juror denies the constitutionality of the prosecution, “preempting consideration of the facts,” can he participate? Second, can the jury continue to deliberate? Judge Young brought the jury in, assured them that the laws at issue were constitutional and sent them home for the day, he wrote. But the following day, the jury sent a note saying the problem had persisted. Young then interviewed each juror, one by one, in his office, in the presence of federal prosecutors and Luisi’s lawyers. When the judge got to Eddlem, he admitted to being the juror in question, Young wrote. Here’s the story from the Boston Globe.

Eddlem, whom the Globe describes as a 42-year-old technology coordinator at a Catholic high school and former John Birch Society official, prompted Judge Young to write a 43-page memo, saying this was the first time he “encountered a juror who has attempted to arrogate to himself the power that our Constitution places in the elected branches of government.” Judge Young ultimately replaced Eddlem with an alternate juror. Shortly afterward, the reconstituted jury convicted Luisi of three cocaine-related charges.

But Eddlem told the Globe that he opposes jury nullification and that it was the judge who subverted the legal system. Eddlem 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.

Eddlem said he would have voted to convict Luisi in a state court; he simply felt there were no grounds for a federal prosecution. “I think when I look back at my life,” said Eddlem, “it’s going to be one of the things I’m most proud of.”

Law Blog Word of the Day: Arrogate: to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right: to arrogate the right to make decisions.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on August 11, 2008 (boomark / email).