Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

How this document has been cited

—law is one of the highest safeguards of the citizen. The sole end of courts of justice is to enforce the laws uniformly and impartially, without respect of persons or times or the opinions of men. To enforce popular laws is easy. But when an unpopular cause is a just cause; when a law, unpopular in some locality, is to be enforced,—there then comes the strain upon the …
- in US v. Edwards, 2017 and 28 similar citations
—"neither party `can have a vested right to a corrupt or prejudiced juror, who is not fit to sit in judgment in the case.'"
- in State v. Cooley, 1980 and 8 similar citations
—the refusal of a trial judge to allow a jury to be told that “if any of them [ie the jurors] conscientiously believed the Act of 1850, commonly called the 'Fugitive Slave Act' to be unconstitutional, they were bound by their oaths to disregard any direction to the contrary which the Court might give them”.
It is not a good plea in bar to an indictment for a misdemeanor, that the case was once committed to a jury, and withdrawn before the verdict, by order of the court.
—determining that "under the [C] onstitution of the United States, juries, in criminal trials, have not the right to decide any question of law; and that if they render a general verdict, their duty and their oath require them to apply to the facts, as they may find them, the law given to them by the court
- in HOFSTRA IAW REVIEW and 7 similar citations
—requirements in the United States that judges give their opinions publicly, explaining the reasoning behind their opinions therein, and the repercussion of impeachment guaranteed in the United States Constitution: As long as the judges of the United States are obliged to express their opinions publicly, to give their reasons for them when called upon in the usual mode …
- in US v. Folse, 2015 and 9 similar citations
The Spaefopinion concludes with a quote from Justice Curtis: "'The sole end of courts of justice is to enforce the laws uniformly and impartially, without respect of persons or times, or the opinions of men.'"
Subsequent convictions of holdouts for deceit during voir dire also have included proof independent of exchanges during deliberations.
—abolitionists who burst into Fugitive Slave Act proceedings and removed former slave to Canada were acquitted);
When this scene took place, it was not so fully settled as it is now that juries in the federal courts are not the rightful judges of the law, even in criminal cases.

Cited by

266 F. Supp. 3d 1290 - Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2017
Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2017
Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2015
960 F. Supp. 2d 1152 - Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2013
268 SE 2d 87 - NC: Court of Appeals 1980
434 US 497 - Supreme Court 1978
321 A. 2d 845 - DC: Court of Appeals 1974
195 US 100 - Supreme Court 1904
Discusses cited case briefly[CITATION] WINNE, Suing for Himself v. Snow
Dist. Court, SD New York 1884
Discusses cited case briefly[CITATION] ROSENBACH v. DREYFUSS and others.
Dist. Court, SD New York 1880