Pubdate: Fri, 28 May 1999
Source: Aspen Daily News (CO)
Copyright: 1999 Ute City Tea Party Ltd. dba Aspen Daily News
Contact:  517 E. Hopkins Avenue
Fax: (970) 920-2118
Feedback: http://www.aspendailynews.com/contact_us/form.htm
Website: http://www.aspendailynews.com/
Author: James Burrus

MARIJUANA LAWS INCHING LEFTWARD

It may not seem like our country's laws, attitudes and public policy are
getting softer on marijuana, but reports from the legal trenches show a
distinct, albeit subtle, shift.

"Politically we are making some substantial progress," said R. Keith Stroup,
executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws, to the approximately 55 men and women -- mostly lawyers -- gathered at
the Gant Thursday for the group's 1999 legal seminar.

Stroup pointed to last November's general election, which saw five out of
five states pass ballot initiatives allowing medical use of marijuana.
Oregon voters, too, shot down by a 2-to-1 margin an attempt to make
marijuana possession a criminal offense as opposed to warranting just a
ticket.

"For the first time in 20 years, the political tide is moving ever so slowly
in our direction," Stroup said. "People say they are worried about crime,
but they mean violent crime, not somebody smoking a joint in their home."

NORML's legal seminar runs through Saturday and covers a wide array of
topics -- from pretrial investigations and picking a jury to cultural
defenses in drug cases and cross examination of snitches.

Thursday's session started off with a rollicking stand-up state of the legal
union address by Aspen attorney and erstwhile defender of Dr. Hunter S.
Thompson, Gerald H. Goldstein.

In 45 minutes, Goldstein blazed through a panalopy of issues, injecting
several one-liners and asides that kept the counselors in stitches.

Taken on their face, many of the legal decisions and political stands
reported on by Goldstein could hardly be seen as funny. But it must hae been
the delivery that brought laughs at such items as the bill proposed recently
by the Mississippi legislature calling for the removal of a body part for
violation of the state's controlled substance law. Or the citizenry's
diminishing right of privacy at the hands of police using ever more
sophisticated technology.

"There is an inverse relationship between the police's increases in
technology and our diminishing expectation of privacy," Goldstein said. "We
need greater protection as technology advances."

Other presentations of the day included "Ethical considerations when
defending juveniles: Kids say the darndest things," "Defending against
charges of child abuse" and "Pretrial investigations: The most important
part of the case."

In the latter talk, Phillip Russell, a former prosecutor in the Bronx, New
York City, said pretrial investigation is where defense attorneys lose most
of their cases.

"They have police departments, we have secretaries," Russell said.

He proceeded to offer examples of how to use the blizzard of paperwork
generated by the legal system to one's best advantage. From knowing where
and how to get all the 9-1-1 tapes of an incident to asking for all the
negatives of photos taken by police at a crime scene, getting the whole
story can often make the difference between winning and losing a case.

And when dealing with prosecution "experts" of any kind, Russell reminded
his audience to be vigilant in maintaining "presumption of bullshit anytime
a government expert testifies."

Perhaps the most prescient of the presentations, in terms of the
organization's ongoing effort to reform marijuana laws, was John Kenneth
Zwerling's "Voir Dire (jury selection) in a medical marijuana case."

Zwerling offered tips on how to question potential jurors that enables them
to give honest answers, how to follow a line of questioning to its logical
conclusion and how to subtly "educate" jurors about the issues they will be
dealing with.

But at one point in reviewing a transcript of the medical marijuana case in
question, Zwerling deftly broached the issue of jury nullification -- the
ability of any juror to decide independently of any instruction from the
judge that a law is not just or fair, and decide accordingly.

Judges never discuss jury nullification and, in fact, if mentioned by a
defense attorney during a trial, can be grounds for a mistrial.

However, as a tool for overturning heavy-handed and oppressive drug laws,
its power should not be underestimated.

"The debate is beginning to focus on law-abiding citizens who want to smoke
a joint instead of having a cocktail," Stroup said. "They are law-abiding
citizens and contribute to society. Three to four years from now you will
see public policy come closer to where public opinion is.

"A jury should reflect community values, but if policy doesn't start
changing in the next three to four years, I think you will begin seeing a
lot of juries nullifying cases," Stroup said.

Jury nullification gained national attention in 1997 when Laura Kriho, a
juror in a drug possession case in Garfield County, was charged with
contempt of court. First Judicial District Chief Judge Henry Neito found her
guilty Feb. 10, 1997.

Her attorney said she was found guilty solely because she did not volunteer
how she felt about drug laws and for exercising her constitutional right as
a juror, by acting independently and going against Judge Neito's
instructions by considering all the aspects of the case, including the
potential punishment.

- ---
MAP posted-by: Don Beck