Black-robed sharks prey on jury pool

 

January 15, 2006 – On January 11, 2006 Charleston County resident, Mark Hocamp, responding to a court summons, appeared for jury duty along with approximately fifty other potential jurors, in a Charleston County courtroom.  They were sworn in before circuit court judge, The Honorable Judge Couch.  The trial for which a jury was being selected was for one Kendrick Meeks, who was facing charges of possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine.  Meeks was absent from the courtroom and was therefore represented by his attorney, Sharon Cummings. 

 

After being sworn in, blanket questions were asked of the entire jury pool present. If a potential juror believed that his or her circumstances provided a “yes” answer to the court’s questions, he of she was instructed to stand up. The jurors were asked the usual questions such as if they had any relations with the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, or the defendant.  This process of screening potential jurors is referred to in legal terms as voir dire, which is an Anglo-French term meaning "to speak the truth."  As Judge Couch continued to ask questions of the jury pool, no juror stood up and identified his or her self as a person who represented a probable “yes” answer to the court’s question. 

 

What happened next happens every single day in every courthouse in the United States of America. It is such an infectious blob of creeping judicial obstruction of justice and violation of the principles governing why the United States has jury trials in the first place that it should be consider nothing less than a treasonous act committed in this instance by three members of the South Carolina Bar Association. 

 

A side bar was called.  Judge Couch, the prosecutor and defense huddled around the bench, whispered, called their play, broke the huddle, and seized control of the last power the people have against an overzealous government by agreeing that Judge Couch ask the potential jurors:

“ Do any of you believe in the decriminalization or legalization of any illegal substances?” 

 

Being more honorable than any person in the courtroom at that moment, Hocamp rose and said, “I do your honor.”  Judge Couch asked, “name and juror number?”  “119, Mark Hocamp.”  “Explain your situation Mr. Hocamp.” “I believe in the decriminalization of drugs, sir.”  “In total,” Judge Couch asked?  “Yes sir.” “Because you hold this belief, would your verdict be subject to partiality?” “Possibly, yes sir,” Hocamp responded.  “Well then, Mr. Hocamp, I excuse you from this jury.” 

 

Judge Couch’s use of the word partiality to excuse Hocamp from the jury pool is nothing short of trickery.   In the legal sense, partiality is an undue bias.  Undue, again in the legal sense, means not lawful; not legal.  There is nothing unlawful or illegal about a juror holding that a law is a bad law.  In fact, it is the duty of each juror to judge every law in which a defendant is charged with violating, as well as the punishment associated with a defendant being found guilty, in addition to the evidence presented at trial.  If you question the validity of the power meant for the jury, study your American history and learn how jurors, not legislators abolished the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930’s.  If subscribing to Judge Couch’s line of questioning, why not ask if any of the jurors favor the criminalization of drugs and support the law as written?  Assuming that each juror who stood up thinks that drugs should be illegal, what would their answer be next when Judge Couch asked them if that because they hold the belief that drugs should be criminalized, would that belief create a partial verdict?  Of course it would and will!  The defendant Kendrick Meeks will have his case heard by twelve jurors who think that drugs should be illegal.  How the government can rationalize that this isn’t a partiality is absolutely beyond comprehension. 

 

Today the government and the Bar Association are repelled by the idea that the twelve jurors are meant to be the most powerful people in any courtroom.  Our Founding Fathers were not.  The fact that there are to be twelve jurors to hear a criminal case and that they must vote unanimously for a defendant to be found guilty, that one juror out of twelve have the power to “hang” a jury didn’t happen by accident.  A jury was always meant to be the last line of defense that we the people could muster to thwart an overzealous government.  Furthermore, the mandate of unanimous consent is the last defense that the minority voice has against mob rule in America.  The fact that one out of twelve, or 8.3% of the jury has the power to save a citizen from what that juror perceive as bad laws and bad government, is a fluttering beacon of hope that the courts, bar, and government is doing everything in its power to extinguish. 

 

Hocamp should not have been excused from jury duty because he thinks that all current criminalized substances should be decriminalized.  After all, Hocamp’s viewpoint on the topic is not isolated.  More than 8.3% of Americans also believe that all currently criminalized substances should be de-criminalized.  To purposely squash this public opinion from being heard in a court of law is treason. 

 

The truth is that the judges and lawyers who have been made rich by the drug laws and at the expense of the drug addicted, know damn well that if every drug possession charge and / or possession with the intent to distribute charge was heard by twelve jurors, their money bloodline would dry up quicker than a $20 rock in a crack user’s stem. 

 

Justice today would be for every single American who is arrested for any drug related charge to demand a trial by jury and not be intimidated by the prosecution’s threats of harsher penalties if they don’t roll over for the state and plead guilty.  Maybe its time for patriots to pool some money and harpoon the sharks through public service announcements that tell the people the truth; that over 97% of criminal cases are disposed of without a jury trial; that nearly half of all criminal proceedings are related to drug laws; and that if every drug law victim would unwaveringly demand a jury trial, the criminal justice system would collapse and could not recover until it stopped prosecuting victimless crime laws. 

 

When this day occurs, it will amount to the people’s second independence day in the United States of America.  Until then, the latitude granted to attorneys and the courts to conduct voir dire must be restrained if not revoked by the people.  Like any other power given to corruptible men, this one has fallen victim to much misuse and abuse.  This story is yet another case in point of individual liberty and freedom being stolen from the people by the governments operating in the United States.  To remain silent in this regard is to encourage further tyranny in South Carolina and the rest of the nation.