Wilbur
New Member
The ruling in the trafficking case of Calgary pot crusader Grant Krieger must be the most expected decision in the history of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Juries have been empowered to ignore judges and laws they consider unjust -known as jury nullification - for several hundred years.
The top court, in a no-nonsense 7-0 judgment last week, had to remind lower-court judges not to tamper with jury deliberations.
The court overturned Krieger's conviction.
Even if there's compelling evidence that an accused is guilty, jurors still have the right to follow their consciences and acquit, the Supreme Court declared.
No-Brainer
Thursday's ruling was a no-brainer in legal circles.
What was astonishing was that an Alberta judge ordered a jury to convict Krieger of possession for the purpose of trafficking and that the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the verdict.
"I'm not the least bit surprised by the Supreme Court's ruling ... that as a matter of legal principle the trial judge cannot direct a verdict of guilty," says Dale Ives, an assistant professor of law at the University of Western Ontario.
"I would have thought that the basic principle that a trial judge cannot order a jury to convict would be uncontroversial today."
Apparently not. Krieger, who smokes pot to alleviate symptoms of multiple sclerosis and who has admitted providing pot to other sick people, was charged in 1999.
It's been a long legal haul for the 52-year-old pot crusader, who is too ill to work and survives on $855 a month in CPP payments.
He was acquitted by his first jury but the Alberta Court of Appeal tossed out the verdict. At his second trial in 2003, the Queen's Bench judge essentially compelled the jury to convict him, even though at least two jurors were opposed.
"To me, it's difficult to say that he's guilty," one female jurymember told the judge.
A male juror explained: "I believe that I could not live with myself if I was part of the conviction of this man."
Justice Paul Chrumka refused their request to be excused and thejury, following his direction, found Krieger guilty.
As the Supreme Court pointed out, Chrumka deprived Krieger of his right to a jury trial when he ordered the jury to find him guilty.
In doing so, the trial judge reduced the jury's role to a "ceremonial" one, the top court noted.
"The verdict must be that of the jury, not the judge," the Supreme Court explained.
"Even if the evidence is overwhelming, this does not justify a directed verdict of guilty," it added.
Jury's Decision
It is up to the jury to decide guilt or innocence unless the Crown'scase is full of holes.
In that case, a judge can order a jury to acquit, the top court said.
In another era, the court noted, juries were locked up without "meat,drink, fire and tobacco" to encourage them to reach verdicts quickly.
Jurors who came back with unacceptable verdicts were punished.
In a seminal English case in 1670, jurors were jailed and fined for refusing to convict.
They wouldn't capitulate and the high court freed them.
Since then, jury deliberations have been considered sacrosanct, which makes the legal hiccup over the Krieger case pretty strange.
The Supreme Court's ruling simply reaffirms that a jury is the ultimate decision-maker in a judge-and-jury trial, says Ives.
"What's the point of having a jury to decide guilt or innocence if you're going to direct them to convict?"
As for Krieger, he's anxious for a retrial.
"It's fabulous," he says of the Supreme Court's decision.
"I only have one interest," he says, "and that's the sick, the injured and the dying."
Newshawk: user - <A HREF="420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking">420 Magazine</A>
Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB)
Pubdate: 30 October 2006
Author: Mindelle Jacobs
Copyright: 2006 Canoe Limited Partnership
Contact: mailbag@edm.sunpub.com
Website:EdmontonSun
Juries have been empowered to ignore judges and laws they consider unjust -known as jury nullification - for several hundred years.
The top court, in a no-nonsense 7-0 judgment last week, had to remind lower-court judges not to tamper with jury deliberations.
The court overturned Krieger's conviction.
Even if there's compelling evidence that an accused is guilty, jurors still have the right to follow their consciences and acquit, the Supreme Court declared.
No-Brainer
Thursday's ruling was a no-brainer in legal circles.
What was astonishing was that an Alberta judge ordered a jury to convict Krieger of possession for the purpose of trafficking and that the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the verdict.
"I'm not the least bit surprised by the Supreme Court's ruling ... that as a matter of legal principle the trial judge cannot direct a verdict of guilty," says Dale Ives, an assistant professor of law at the University of Western Ontario.
"I would have thought that the basic principle that a trial judge cannot order a jury to convict would be uncontroversial today."
Apparently not. Krieger, who smokes pot to alleviate symptoms of multiple sclerosis and who has admitted providing pot to other sick people, was charged in 1999.
It's been a long legal haul for the 52-year-old pot crusader, who is too ill to work and survives on $855 a month in CPP payments.
He was acquitted by his first jury but the Alberta Court of Appeal tossed out the verdict. At his second trial in 2003, the Queen's Bench judge essentially compelled the jury to convict him, even though at least two jurors were opposed.
"To me, it's difficult to say that he's guilty," one female jurymember told the judge.
A male juror explained: "I believe that I could not live with myself if I was part of the conviction of this man."
Justice Paul Chrumka refused their request to be excused and thejury, following his direction, found Krieger guilty.
As the Supreme Court pointed out, Chrumka deprived Krieger of his right to a jury trial when he ordered the jury to find him guilty.
In doing so, the trial judge reduced the jury's role to a "ceremonial" one, the top court noted.
"The verdict must be that of the jury, not the judge," the Supreme Court explained.
"Even if the evidence is overwhelming, this does not justify a directed verdict of guilty," it added.
Jury's Decision
It is up to the jury to decide guilt or innocence unless the Crown'scase is full of holes.
In that case, a judge can order a jury to acquit, the top court said.
In another era, the court noted, juries were locked up without "meat,drink, fire and tobacco" to encourage them to reach verdicts quickly.
Jurors who came back with unacceptable verdicts were punished.
In a seminal English case in 1670, jurors were jailed and fined for refusing to convict.
They wouldn't capitulate and the high court freed them.
Since then, jury deliberations have been considered sacrosanct, which makes the legal hiccup over the Krieger case pretty strange.
The Supreme Court's ruling simply reaffirms that a jury is the ultimate decision-maker in a judge-and-jury trial, says Ives.
"What's the point of having a jury to decide guilt or innocence if you're going to direct them to convict?"
As for Krieger, he's anxious for a retrial.
"It's fabulous," he says of the Supreme Court's decision.
"I only have one interest," he says, "and that's the sick, the injured and the dying."
Newshawk: user - <A HREF="420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking">420 Magazine</A>
Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB)
Pubdate: 30 October 2006
Author: Mindelle Jacobs
Copyright: 2006 Canoe Limited Partnership
Contact: mailbag@edm.sunpub.com
Website:EdmontonSun
