Back to Map

MAPTalk-Digest Wednesday, July 16 2014 Volume 14 : Number 009

001 DEBATE ON LEGALIZED MARIJUANA TO BE BROADCAST WEDNESDAY - Judge Jim Gra
    From: 
002 CN ON: Column: Criminal Juries Can Serve As Society's Conscience
    From: Jay Bergstrom <>
003 CN ON: Column: Criminal Juries Can Serve As Society's Conscience
    From: Jay Bergstrom <>
004 CN ON: Column: Criminal Juries All-Powerful
    From: Jay Bergstrom <>
005 CN ON: Column: Criminal Juries Can Serve As Society's Conscience
    From: Jay Bergstrom <>


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subj: 001 DEBATE ON LEGALIZED MARIJUANA TO BE BROADCAST WEDNESDAY - Judge Jim Gray to Advocate for Legalization Opposite Dr. Kevin Sabet
From: 
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:26:49 -0700

DEBATE ON LEGALIZED MARIJUANA TO BE BROADCAST WEDNESDAY
Judge Jim Gray to Advocate for Legalization Opposite Dr. Kevin Sabet

CO—Former federal prosecutor, judge advocate for the Navy JAG corps and
Superior Court Judge Jim Gray (Ret.) is in the Denver area this week
meeting with media and civic groups and preparing for a debate this
Wednesday on the merits of marijuana legalization, regulation and control.
Judge Gray is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of
law enforcement officials who believe that prohibiting illicit drugs only
serves to empower the criminal networks that sell them, wastes law
enforcement time and resources, contributes to racial disparities in the
justice system, saddles people who would be better served by treatment
with criminal records and ultimately is ineffective at reducing use.

“The essential question is, would you rather have government regulators
and legitimate business owners deciding how marijuana is grown, what it’s
laced with, and who can buy it, or would you rather leave those decisions
– and multiple billions of dollars in profits – to drug cartels and
juvenile street gangs?”

He will be debating Dr. Kevin Sabet of Project SAM this coming Wednesday
at the Colorado School of Mines in an event that will be broadcast live
here.
(http://www.fee.org/seminars/page/is-legalizing-marijuana-a-responsible).
Judge Gray will also be available for interviews before and after the
debate.

“I look forward to discussing with Dr. Sabet the lesson we all should have
learned eighty years ago with the prohibition of alcohol: Prohibiting a
substance doesn’t prevent its use; it merely makes that use vastly more
dangerous to both users and the communities in which they live.”

WHO: Judge Jim Gray vs. Dr. Kevin Sabet

WHAT: A public debate on marijuana legalization

WHEN: Wednesday, July 16 10:45am MT

WHERE: Colorado School of Mines Student Center, Ballroom B, 1600 Maple
Street Golden, CO 80401 or online at
http://www.fee.org/seminars/page/is-legalizing-marijuana-a-responsible

------------------------------

Subj: 002 CN ON: Column: Criminal Juries Can Serve As Society's Conscience
From: Jay Bergstrom <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:57:10 -0700

Newshawk: Herb Couch
Tracknum: 29617.201407151443.s6feh2dp012316
Pubdate: Mon, 14 Jul 2014
Source: Tribune, The (CN ON)
Copyright: 2014, Osprey Media Group Inc.
Contact: http://www.wellandtribune.ca/letters
Website: http://www.wellandtribune.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2807
Author: Alan Shanoff
Page: A4
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/grant.htm (Krieger, Grant)

CRIMINAL JURIES CAN SERVE AS SOCIETY'S CONSCIENCE

My column last Sunday advocating the abolition of civil jury trials 
caused some confusion.

To be clear, I am not advocating the abolition of juries for criminal trials.

The right to a jury trial is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of 
Rights and Freedoms for anyone charged with an offence - other than 
under military law - for which there is a potential sentence of five 
years or more.

More noteworthy is the fact a criminal jury can serve as society's conscience.

That's because criminal juries have the power to refuse to convict 
obviously guilty people.

Juries can do this by refusing to apply the law.

This power represents "the citizen's ultimate protection against 
oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law", according 
to a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In essence, jury nullification allows jurors to judge our laws as 
well as the accused who appear before them.

Judges have no power to order a jury to convict.

That's been the case since at least 1670, when two Quakers were 
prosecuted in England for unlawful assembly after publicly preaching 
their views.

The judge, incensed at the jury's refusal to convict, fined the jurors.

Four of the jurors were imprisoned after failing to pay the fines.

Ultimately, the four were released with an appellate judge overruling 
the trial judge and affirming the jury's independence.

There is a long, proud tradition of jury nullification based on 
English Common Law, with jurors refusing to convict all manner of 
people charged under unjust laws or laws prescribing unjust penalties.

A jury declared Joseph Howe not guilty of seditious libel in an 1835 
pre-Confederation Canadian prosecution.

Howe, a newspaper publisher, had been charged with seditious libel 
after publishing a letter accusing politicians of corruption.

He was clearly guilty and the trial judge told the jury they should 
find Howe guilty, but the jury came back with a not guilty verdict in 
under 10 minutes.

More recently, in the 1970s and 1980s, juries used this power to 
acquit Henry Morgantaler of criminal abortion charges of which he was 
clearly guilty.

At that time, legal abortions could only be performed in a hospital 
and only after approval by the hospital's therapeutic abortion committee.

Morgentaler, however, performed abortions outside hospitals and 
without any committee approvals, yet four juries refused to convict him.

The last significant Canadian case of jury nullification arose in the 
1999 prosecution of Grant Wayne Krieger of Alberta who had been 
charged with unlawfully producing marijuana.

Krieger, suffering from multiple sclerosis, used pot for medicinal purposes.

He also admitted to supplying the drug to other ill people.

The trial judge directed the jury "to retire to the jury room ... and 
then to return to the court with a verdict of guilty."

When some jurors balked, the judge said "(i)t is apparent that some 
of the members either didn't understand my direction this morning, 
that is that they were to return a verdict of guilty ... or they 
refused to do so."

The jury then came back with a guilty verdict but Krieger appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the conviction, ruling the trial 
judge erred in forcing the jury to convict.

The judge had wrongly taken away the right of jury nullification.

There's no way of knowing how frequently juries exercise their 
nullification rights as our laws prohibit jurors from disclosing 
information about their deliberations, save in very limited circumstances.

Instances of jury nullification, however, are likely rare in Canada 
as our law doesn't permit either defence lawyers or judges to advise 
jurors of their nullification rights.

Clearly juries have performed a valuable role in the development and 
enforcement of our criminal law.

It's a pity, however, that juries aren't told of their rich history 
and their absolute power.

------------------------------

Subj: 003 CN ON: Column: Criminal Juries Can Serve As Society's Conscience
From: Jay Bergstrom <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:57:20 -0700

Newshawk: Herb Couch
Tracknum: override
Pubdate: Mon, 14 Jul 2014
Source: Sault Star, The (CN ON)
Copyright: 2014 The Sault Star
Contact: http://www.saultstar.com/letters
Website: http://www.saultstar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1071
Author: Alan Shanoff
Page: A7
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/grant.htm (Krieger, Grant)

CRIMINAL JURIES CAN SERVE AS SOCIETY'S CONSCIENCE

My column last Sunday advocating the abolition of civil jury trials 
caused some confusion.

To be clear, I am not advocating the abolition of juries for criminal trials.

The right to a jury trial is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of 
Rights and Freedoms for anyone charged with an offence - other than 
under military law - for which there is a potential sentence of five 
years or more.

More noteworthy is the fact a criminal jury can serve as society's conscience.

That's because criminal juries have the power to refuse to convict 
obviously guilty people.

Juries can do this by refusing to apply the law.

This power represents "the citizen's ultimate protection against 
oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law", according 
to a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In essence, jury nullification allows jurors to judge our laws as 
well as the accused who appear before them.

Judges have no power to order a jury to convict.

That's been the case since at least 1670, when two Quakers were 
prosecuted in England for unlawful assembly after publicly preaching 
their views.

The judge, incensed at the jury's refusal to convict, fined the jurors.

Four of the jurors were imprisoned after failing to pay the fines.

Ultimately, the four were released with an appellate judge overruling 
the trial judge and affirming the jury's independence.

There is a long, proud tradition of jury nullification based on 
English Common Law, with jurors refusing to convict all manner of 
people charged under unjust laws or laws prescribing unjust penalties.

A jury declared Joseph Howe not guilty of seditious libel in an 1835 
pre-Confederation Canadian prosecution.

Howe, a newspaper publisher, had been charged with seditious libel 
after publishing a letter accusing politicians of corruption.

He was clearly guilty and the trial judge told the jury they should 
find Howe guilty, but the jury came back with a not guilty verdict in 
under 10 minutes.

More recently, in the 1970s and 1980s, juries used this power to 
acquit Henry Morgantaler of criminal abortion charges of which he was 
clearly guilty.

At that time, legal abortions could only be performed in a hospital 
and only after approval by the hospital's therapeutic abortion committee.

Morgentaler, however, performed abortions outside hospitals and 
without any committee approvals, yet four juries refused to convict him.

The last significant Canadian case of jury nullification arose in the 
1999 prosecution of Grant Wayne Krieger of Alberta who had been 
charged with unlawfully producing marijuana.

Krieger, suffering from multiple sclerosis, used pot for medicinal purposes.

He also admitted to supplying the drug to other ill people.

The trial judge directed the jury "to retire to the jury room ... and 
then to return to the court with a verdict of guilty."

When some jurors balked, the judge said "(i)t is apparent that some 
of the members either didn't understand my direction this morning, 
that is that they were to return a verdict of guilty ... or they 
refused to do so."

The jury then came back with a guilty verdict but Krieger appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the conviction, ruling the trial 
judge erred in forcing the jury to convict.

The judge had wrongly taken away the right of jury nullification.

There's no way of knowing how frequently juries exercise their 
nullification rights as our laws prohibit jurors from disclosing 
information about their deliberations, save in very limited circumstances.

Instances of jury nullification, however, are likely rare in Canada 
as our law doesn't permit either defence lawyers or judges to advise 
jurors of their nullification rights.

------------------------------

Subj: 004 CN ON: Column: Criminal Juries All-Powerful
From: Jay Bergstrom <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:58:00 -0700

Newshawk: Herb Couch
Tracknum: 2339.201407151458.s6fewqu7021407
Pubdate: Sun, 13 Jul 2014
Source: Toronto Sun (CN ON)
Copyright: 2014 Canoe Limited Partnership
Contact: http://www.torontosun.com/letter-to-editor
Website: http://torontosun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/457
Author: Alan Shanoff
Page: 21
Referenced: Melanie Janelle Murchison's master's thesis, Law, 
Morality and Social Discourse: Jury Nullification in a Canadian 
Context: http://mapinc.org/url/7TQAne8Z
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/grant.htm (Krieger, Grant)

CRIMINAL JURIES ALL-POWERFUL

Judges Can't Force Jurors to Find People Guilty Under Unfair Laws

My column last Sunday advocating the abolition of civil jury trials 
caused some confusion.

To be clear, I am not advocating the abolition of juries for criminal trials.

The right to a jury trial is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of 
Rights and Freedoms for anyone charged with an offence - other than 
under military law - for which there is a potential sentence of five 
years or more.

More noteworthy is the fact a criminal jury can serve as society's conscience.

That's because criminal juries have the power to refuse to convict 
obviously guilty people.

Juries can do this by refusing to apply the law.

This power represents "the citizen's ultimate protection against 
oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law", according 
to a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In essence, jury nullification allows jurors to judge our laws as 
well as the accused who appear before them.

Judges have no power to order a jury to convict.

That's been the case since at least 1670, when two Quakers were 
prosecuted in England for unlawful assembly after publicly preaching 
their views.

The judge, incensed at the jury's refusal to convict, fined the jurors.

Four of the jurors were imprisoned after failing to pay the fines.

Ultimately, the four were released with an appellate judge overruling 
the trial judge and affirming the jury's independence.

There is a long, proud tradition of jury nullification based on 
English Common Law, with jurors refusing to convict all manner of 
people charged under unjust laws or laws prescribing unjust penalties.

A jury declared Joseph Howe not guilty of seditious libel in an 1835 
pre-Confederation Canadian prosecution.

Howe, a newspaper publisher, had been charged with seditious libel 
after publishing a letter accusing politicians of corruption.

He was clearly guilty and the trial judge told the jury they should 
find Howe guilty, but the jury came back with a not guilty verdict in 
under 10 minutes.

More recently, in the 1970s and 1980s, juries used this power to 
acquit Henry Morgantaler of criminal abortion charges of which he was 
clearly guilty.

At that time, legal abortions could only be performed in a hospital 
and only after approval by the hospital's therapeutic abortion committee.

Morgentaler, however, performed abortions outside hospitals and 
without any committee approvals, yet four juries refused to convict him.

The last significant Canadian case of jury nullification arose in the 
1999 prosecution of Grant Wayne Krieger of Alberta who had been 
charged with unlawfully producing marijuana.

Krieger, suffering from multiple sclerosis, used pot for medicinal purposes.

He also admitted to supplying the drug to other ill people.

The trial judge directed the jury "to retire to the jury room ... and 
then to return to the court with a verdict of guilty."

When some jurors balked, the judge said "(i)t is apparent that some 
of the members either didn't understand my direction this morning, 
that is that they were to return a verdict of guilty ... or they 
refused to do so."

The jury then came back with a guilty verdict but Krieger appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the conviction, ruling the trial 
judge erred in forcing the jury to convict.

The judge had wrongly taken away the right of jury nullification.

There's no way of knowing how frequently juries exercise their 
nullification rights as our laws prohibit jurors from disclosing 
information about their deliberations, save in very limited circumstances.

Instances of jury nullification, however, are likely rare in Canada 
as our law doesn't permit either defence lawyers or judges to advise 
jurors of their nullification rights.

Clearly juries have performed a valuable role in the development and 
enforcement of our criminal law.

It's a pity, however, that juries aren't told of their rich history 
and their absolute power.

For more information on jury nullification, readers are encouraged to 
read Melanie Janelle Murchison's master's thesis, Law, Morality and 
Social Discourse: Jury Nullification in a Canadian Context, which is 
available online.

------------------------------

Subj: 005 CN ON: Column: Criminal Juries Can Serve As Society's Conscience
From: Jay Bergstrom <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:57:41 -0700

Newshawk: Herb Couch
Tracknum: override
Pubdate: Mon, 14 Jul 2014
Source: Standard, The (St. Catharines, CN ON)
Webpage: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/12/criminal-juries-all-powerful
Copyright: 2014 St. Catharines Standard
Contact: http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/letters
Website: http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/676
Author: Alan Shanoff
Page: A4
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/grant.htm (Krieger, Grant)

CRIMINAL JURIES CAN SERVE AS SOCIETY'S CONSCIENCE

My column last Sunday advocating the abolition of civil jury trials 
caused some confusion.

To be clear, I am not advocating the abolition of juries for criminal trials.

The right to a jury trial is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of 
Rights and Freedoms for anyone charged with an offence - other than 
under military law - for which there is a potential sentence of five 
years or more.

More noteworthy is the fact a criminal jury can serve as society's conscience.

That's because criminal juries have the power to refuse to convict 
obviously guilty people.

Juries can do this by refusing to apply the law.

This power represents "the citizen's ultimate protection against 
oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law", according 
to a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In essence, jury nullification allows jurors to judge our laws as 
well as the accused who appear before them.

Judges have no power to order a jury to convict.

That's been the case since at least 1670, when two Quakers were 
prosecuted in England for unlawful assembly after publicly preaching 
their views.

The judge, incensed at the jury's refusal to convict, fined the jurors.

Four of the jurors were imprisoned after failing to pay the fines.

Ultimately, the four were released with an appellate judge overruling 
the trial judge and affirming the jury's independence.

There is a long, proud tradition of jury nullification based on 
English Common Law, with jurors refusing to convict all manner of 
people charged under unjust laws or laws prescribing unjust penalties.

A jury declared Joseph Howe not guilty of seditious libel in an 1835 
pre-Confederation Canadian prosecution.

Howe, a newspaper publisher, had been charged with seditious libel 
after publishing a letter accusing politicians of corruption.

He was clearly guilty and the trial judge told the jury they should 
find Howe guilty, but the jury came back with a not guilty verdict in 
under 10 minutes.

More recently, in the 1970s and 1980s, juries used this power to 
acquit Henry Morgantaler of criminal abortion charges of which he was 
clearly guilty.

At that time, legal abortions could only be performed in a hospital 
and only after approval by the hospital's therapeutic abortion committee.

Morgentaler, however, performed abortions outside hospitals and 
without any committee approvals, yet four juries refused to convict him.

The last significant Canadian case of jury nullification arose in the 
1999 prosecution of Grant Wayne Krieger of Alberta who had been 
charged with unlawfully producing marijuana.

Krieger, suffering from multiple sclerosis, used pot for medicinal purposes.

He also admitted to supplying the drug to other ill people.

The trial judge directed the jury "to retire to the jury room ... and 
then to return to the court with a verdict of guilty."

When some jurors balked, the judge said "(i)t is apparent that some 
of the members either didn't understand my direction this morning, 
that is that they were to return a verdict of guilty ... or they 
refused to do so."

The jury then came back with a guilty verdict but Krieger appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the conviction, ruling the trial 
judge erred in forcing the jury to convict.

The judge had wrongly taken away the right of jury nullification.

There's no way of knowing how frequently juries exercise their 
nullification rights as our laws prohibit jurors from disclosing 
information about their deliberations, save in very limited circumstances.

Instances of jury nullification, however, are likely rare in Canada 
as our law doesn't permit either defence lawyers or judges to advise 
jurors of their nullification rights.

Clearly juries have performed a valuable role in the development and 
enforcement of our criminal law.

It's a pity, however, that juries aren't told of their rich history 
and their absolute power.

------------------------------

End of MAPTalk-Digest V14 #9
****************************


HomeBulletin BoardChat RoomsDrug LinksDrug NewsFeedback
Guest BookMailing ListsMedia EmailMedia LinksLettersSearch