|
Federal Court: Juries free to acquit |
|
|
|
|
Written by Martin Williams
|
|
Saturday, 10 June 2006 |
Appellate ruling affirms Feds can disregard medical rights, juries cannot be punished for their verdicts
When cannabis activist and “guru of ganja” Ed Rosenthal was convicted on cannabis cultivation charges in 2003, federal judge Charles Breyer gave him only a day behind bars — time served — due to extenuating circumstances.
Many considered it a victory; but not Rosenthal. He appealed his conviction, and in an extraordinary turn of events, members of his jury came forth to disavow their own verdict after they learned that the cannabis was medicine and the grow-book author was working as an appointed deputy of the Oakland city government.
OPEN FOR BUSINESS - Latest dispensary reviews. Oaksterdam News Photos by Jaime Galindo 
“Jurors cannot fairly determine the outcome of a case
if they believe they will face ‘trouble’ for a conclusion they reach as
jurors,” said the majority opinion. “The threat of punishment works a
coercive influence on the jury’s independence, and a juror who
genuinely fears retribution might change his or her determination of
the issue for fear of being punished.”
 Hash selection on hand
Last summer, the US Supreme Court, in its Gonzalez v. Raich decision, again rejected allowing defendants to raise medical marijuana or state law as a defense against federal drug charges.
Legal activists argue that, by denying jurors access to “the whole truth” about cannabis offenses, federal courts give every juror the “reasonable doubt” needed to acquit cannabis defendants. They point out that alcohol Prohibition also led to a refusal of jurors to convict.
Federal prosecutors have several options, such as asking the court to reconsider, appealing to the Supreme Court or going ahead with a new trial. |
Martin Williams |
| About the author: |
| | |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 24 September 2006 )
|
Volume 2 
The Men's Wearhouse George Zimmer
