Welcome to Oaksterdam News Network
Home arrow Volume Two arrow V2 Issue 2 arrow Jury nullification hangs SF sales trial
Adjust Text -
Jury nullification hangs SF sales trial PDF Print E-mail
Written by Martin Williams   
Public interest in the power of a juror to refuse to convict a defendant in the interest of justice has been stoked by the March 1 outcome of the “Nurse Tom” Juzbasic case in which a single holdout juror forced a mistrial. When the case was argued and sent to the jury, one juror refused to convict or to deliberate, making a consensus verdict impossible to achieve.

“When the judge asked jurors how many would have voted to convict 
Juzbasic on the first count of possession of marijuana for sale, all 
jurors but the one uncooperative juror raised their hands,” reported freelance journalist Annie Harrison. “On the 
second count of selling cannabis, all but two jurors indicated that 
they would have voted to convict.”

The DA’s office promptly re-filed charges.

The case originated in 2003 — before SB 420 legalized some medical marijuana sales, but its provisions are retroactive. The charges, an alleged sale to an undercover narcotics agent and possession with intent to sell, were controversial because Juzbasic actually is a nurse who took the stand admitting that he provided marijuana to patients. The sales and intent to distribute charges centered on whether the lenient verification system Juzbasic used to qualify and identify his patients was too lax and whether he met the definition of a caregiver under state law.
"Juries cannot be punished for their verdicts and juries do not have to explain their verdicts."

The judge passed questions from the jurors to the defense and prosecution for consideration. One juror raised the question of what happens when a patient has an oral approval rather than a written recommendation. Defense expert Chris Conrad discussed the difficulty for a caregiver to authenticate that information, particularly when many doctors will not discuss their patient’s medical records. Those patients cannot get access to the state’s licensed cannabis outlets that require written records and a photo ID.
 
California requires a unanimous verdict in criminal court but not in civil court. Some states, such as Oregon, do not require a unanimous criminal verdict and require three dissenting jurors to block a conviction.

Drug policy reformers have for some time predicted that jurors can effectively change the law by refusing to convict. “Juries cannot be punished for their verdicts and juries do not have to explain their verdicts,” points out Richard Lee, a 15-year member of the Fully Informed Jury Association.

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