I was called for jury duty yesterday--consternation ensued

[branford]

122. The issue is whether you would be honest about your opinions if called for jury duty.

If so, you would certainly be acting in the appropriate and legal manner, as was the OP.

However, my general concern is that some in this thread believe it appropriate to lie or withhold pertinent information during jury selection in order to advance their personal views of drug laws and sentencing. I find that particularly troubling. First, it corrupts the system. The proper venue to change laws is the legislature. Moreover, such lies and omissions are perjurious, and could result in the activist juror's prosecution for perjury or criminal contempt, regardless of whether he or she manages to actually get on the jury or affect the verdict. It's also not jury nullification as the term is commonly understood, as that requires a honest and properly selected jury to engage in good faith deliberations before rendering an acquittal in the interests of justice. Tipping the scales by deceit before hearing the evidence is corrupt, not noble. If justified for drug charges, it would condone similar similar actions concerning gun charges, sexual assault allegations, and other criminal matters that have a political component or perspective, and would not be supported by the majority here on DU..