Pubdate: Thu, 12 Jan 2006
Source: Calgary Herald (CN AB)
Copyright: 2006 Calgary Herald
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/66
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)

MARIJUANA CRUSADER TESTS JURY POWERS

Supreme Court To Give Ruling

An ill Alberta man who admits to growing and distributing marijuana 
for medicinal purposes will challenge his drug trafficking conviction 
in the 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 marijuana 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 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 to 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 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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom