|
Jury nullification hangs SF sales trial |
|
|
|
|
Written by Martin Williams
|
|
Thursday, 30 March 2006 |
Public interest in the power of a juror to refuse to convict a
defendant in the interest of justice has been stoked by the March 1
outcome of the “Nurse Tom” Juzbasic case in which a single holdout
juror forced a mistrial. When the case was argued and sent to the jury,
one juror refused to convict or to deliberate, making a consensus
verdict impossible to achieve.
“When the judge asked jurors how many would have voted to convict
Juzbasic on the first count of possession of marijuana for sale, all
jurors but the one uncooperative juror raised their hands,” reported
freelance journalist Annie Harrison. “On the
second count of selling
cannabis, all but two jurors indicated that
they would have voted to
convict.”
The DA’s office promptly re-filed charges.
The case originated in 2003 — before SB 420 legalized some medical
marijuana sales, but its provisions are retroactive. The charges, an
alleged sale to an undercover narcotics agent and possession with
intent to sell, were controversial because Juzbasic actually is a nurse
who took the stand admitting that he provided marijuana to patients.
The sales and intent to distribute charges centered on whether the
lenient verification system Juzbasic used to qualify and identify his
patients was too lax and whether he met the definition of a caregiver
under state law.
"Juries cannot be punished for their verdicts and juries do not have to explain their verdicts."
The judge passed questions from the jurors to the defense and
prosecution for consideration. One juror raised the question of what
happens when a patient has an oral approval rather than a written
recommendation. Defense expert Chris Conrad discussed the difficulty
for a caregiver to authenticate that information, particularly when
many doctors will not discuss their patient’s medical records. Those
patients cannot get access to the state’s licensed cannabis outlets
that require written records and a photo ID.
California requires a unanimous verdict in criminal court but not in
civil court. Some states, such as Oregon, do not require a unanimous
criminal verdict and require three dissenting jurors to block a
conviction.
Drug policy reformers have for some time predicted that jurors can
effectively change the law by refusing to convict. “Juries cannot be
punished for their verdicts and juries do not have to explain their
verdicts,” points out Richard Lee, a 15-year member of the Fully
Informed Jury Association.
|
Martin Williams |
| About the author: |
| | |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 24 September 2006 )
|
Volume 2 
The Men's Wearhouse George Zimmer
