Pubdate: Thu, 12 Jan 2006
Source: Edmonton Journal (CN AB)
Copyright: 2006 The Edmonton Journal
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/134
Author: Janice Tibbetts, CanWest News Service
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/grant.htm (Krieger, Grant)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

ALBERTA MAN HOPES TO REVERSE POT CONVICTION IN JURY TEST CASE

Judge Instructed Jurors To Convict

OTTAWA - An ill Alberta man who admits to growing and distributing 
marijuana for medicinal purposes will challenge his drug trafficking 
conviction in Supreme Court today in a test of how far juries can go 
in acquitting people who openly break the law.

A lawyer for Grant Krieger, a longtime medical mari-juana crusader, 
will square off against Ottawa over a rare legal safety valve, called 
jury nullification, which allows jurors to rule against a law in 
exceptional cases.

Krieger, 51, was sentenced to a day in jail for being caught with 29 
marijuana plants seven years ago. The Calgary man, who uses marijuana 
to control multiple sclerosis, runs a "compassion club" to sell or 
give marijuana for medical purposes.

He confessed at his trial but used the seldom successful defence of 
necessity, arguing he had no choice but to break the law to ensure a 
reliable supply of pot for patients who have federally approved 
exemptions to use marijuana.

The judge in the case instructed the jurors to convict Krieger, 
despite strong indications two jurors wanted to acquit him.

"Jury nullification runs contrary to the rule of law," federal 
lawyers wrote in a legal brief submitted in the Supreme Court. "It is 
animated by sentiment and sympathy rather than logic and consistency."

Although judges are supposed to encourage jurors to stick to the 
letter of the law, Krieger's lawyer, John Hook, argues the Supreme 
Court formally recognized jury nullification in the 1988 acquittal of 
abortion doctor Henry Morgentaler.

At the time, the bench described the jury's power as "the citizen's 
ultimate protection against oppressive laws and the oppressive 
enforcement of the law."

But 13 years later, in the case of Saskatchewan farmer Robert 
Latimer, the Supreme Court took a narrower view.

"The law cannot ignore jury nullification," said the 2001 ruling that 
refused to clear Latimer of a minimum mandatory life sentence for 
killing his severely disabled daughter.

"Saying that jury nullification may occur is distant from 
deliberately allowing the defence to argue it before a jury or 
letting a judge raise the possibility of nullification in his or her 
instructions to the jury."

Krieger is appealing his defeat in the Alberta Court of Appeal. It 
ruled that, although trial judge Paul Chrumka made a mistake in 
ordering the jury to convict, a new trial would result in the same verdict.

Chief Justice Catherine Fraser dissented on the grounds the jury in 
Krieger's case didn't understand it had the final call on his guilt 
or innocence.

Fraser noted judges have no obligation to raise the possibility of 
jury nullification because "a criminal justice system would count for 
little if jurors were free to simply ignore the law or rely on 
improper myths and stereotypes in decision making."

But the judge in Krieger's case went too far in telling jurors they 
had no choice but to convict, Fraser concluded.

The case reaches the Supreme Court automatically because of the 
dissent in the lower court.

Krieger, who lives on a disability pension, will fly to Ottawa for 
the court hearing after people raised money for him to go.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom