Welcome to Oaksterdam News Network
Home arrow Volume Two arrow V2 Issue 3 arrow Federal Court: Juries free to acquit
Adjust Text -
Federal Court: Juries free to acquit PDF Print E-mail
Written by Martin Williams   
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
OPEN FOR BUSINESS - Click for latest dispensary reviews.
    All medical evidence and discussion had been suppressed during the trial held in California, where state voters have legalized medical marijuana. However, that omission was not the reason the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court overturned the conviction April 26. Instead, the court held that “Juror A” had improperly sought out a legal opinion from an attorney, who told her she would be “in trouble” if she voted her conscience when she figured out the medical nature of the case.

    “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
Hash selection on hand
  Unfortunately, while the three-judge panel reversed his conviction because of juror misconduct, it concurred with the lower court on all other matters, including its not allowing “a ‘medical marijuana’ defense, introducing evidence or argument aimed at jury nullification,” and that his being appointed a deputy did not shield Rosenthal from prosecution.

    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.
 
Next >
V3 Issue 2
Best viewed with:
Get Firefox!