Pubdate: Tue,  1 Apr 2003
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Copyright: 2003 San Francisco Examiner
Contact:  http://www.examiner.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/389
Author: J.K. Dineen, SF Examiner Staff

ROSENTHAL CASE SHAKEUP

In a startling revelation that could mean a new trial for convicted 
medical-marijuana cultivator Ed Rosenthal, a juror in the case says she 
violated the law by seeking outside legal advice during the trial and then 
sharing the information with a fellow juror.

The development is another chapter in the bizarre case of Rosenthal, a 
nationally recognized medical pot advocate whose case pitted state medical 
marijuana laws against federal laws, which do not allow for any use or 
cultivation of pot.

With Rosenthal's sentencing slated for later this month, jury member Marney 
Craig will appear this morning before Judge Charles Breyer. Craig is 
expected to say that despite constant warnings from the judge not to 
discuss the case outside of the courtroom, she sought and obtained outside 
legal advice on whether she could vote not guilty.

After being told that she had to vote guilty, she then shared that advice 
with another juror, Pamela Klarkowski, according to sources.

A source said Craig is not expected to name the lawyer she spoke to. 
Klarkowski, the juror she allegedly shared the illegal counsel with, will 
reportedly be there to confirm that the conversation took place.

Rosenthal attorney Dennis Riordan called the case a "classic example" of a 
situation where a mistrial is warranted.

"Even if she had never talked to the other juror that could be sufficient 
grounds for mistrial," said Riordan.

The Rosenthal trial received national attention after a majority of the 
jurors after the conviction repudiated their verdict, contending they 
should have been allowed to consider that Rosenthal was growing the 
marijuana in accordance with state medical marijuana laws and that he had 
been deputized by the city of Oakland to grow medical pot.

Craig was one of the jurors who went on television to complain about the 
trial and called it "the worst mistake of my life."

Golden Gate Law School Dean Peter Keane said the revelation could 
constitute jury misconduct and grounds for a new trial.

"If you have something that comes into the jury room from outside, such as 
an outside legal interpretation or a jury member going to a crime scene to 
see evidence that was not presented, that is jury misconduct," Keane said.

If Craig did get advice from a lawyer, that attorney would have been guilty 
of misconduct as well, Keane said.

He said Craig could be in legal hot water as well, although judges respond 
to jury misconduct in a variety of ways.

"It varies from a chewing out to a finding of contempt and a fine to, in 
egregious situations, maybe a couple of days in jail," he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom