Score One for Medical Marijuana

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

... on a technicality, mind you.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Conviction of Pot Activist

The Supreme Court of Canada has overturned the conviction of a medical marijuana crusader, ruling the trial judge erred by directing the jury to find the man guilty.

In a 7-0 judgment released Thursday, the court granted a new trial to Grant Krieger, a Calgary man who had been found guilty on charges of possession of pot for purposes of trafficking.

"The crucial fight is still ahead," Krieger told CBC News after the ruling was released. "However, if a judge properly instructs a jury of my peers, I should be able to get a proper verdict out of them, whether it be guilty or not guilty."

Krieger suffers from multiple sclerosis and has legal permission to smoke marijuana for medical purposes. He says he should have the right to distribute marijuana to others who need it to ease the pain of serious illness.

The judge at Krieger's trial in 2003 instructed the jury to "retire to the jury room to consider what I have said, appoint one of yourselves to be your foreperson, and then to return to the court with a verdict of guilty."

Two jurors objected, one on religious grounds and the other on grounds of conscience. They asked to be excused from the case, but the judge refused the request.

The top court ruled that the judge deprived Krieger of his constitutional right to a trial by jury when he gave his instructions.

"The trial judge's direction was not a 'slip of the tongue' to be evaluated in the context of the charge as a whole," the court wrote.

"His purpose and words were clear. In effect, the trial judge reduced the jury's role to a ceremonial one: he ordered the conviction and left to the jury, as a matter of form but not of substance, its delivery in open court."

Krieger doesn't have permission from the federal government to supply marijuana to others, but freely admits that he has done so regardless.

With files from the Canadian Press

I'd love to know what the juror's religious objections might have been.

[bradm]

I'd love to know what the juror's religious objections might have been.

Perhaps she/he was a Rastafarian?

Aloha,

Brad

[StoneMtn]

Well, I read that judgment this morning, and it was really more of a comment on judicial practice than anything particularly relevant to the med-marijuana issue; in my view.

Still, good news for the Appellant in this case, though.

[bradm]

StoneMtn, what would/could have happened if the jury had returned a verdict of "Not Guilty"?

Aloha,

Brad

[StoneMtn]

That would probably have been the end of the matter. The Crown could have appealed, but it would have been for entirely different reasons than the appeal here.

The point of this judgment is that the jury is the ultimate decision-maker as to guilt or innocence, but the trial judge usurped the jury's role. If the judge had left the decision-making to the jury, that would have been the way things were supposed to have worked, and the Crown would have had to appeal for some other reason (or simply accept the judgment if there were no "errors of law" and no "failure to weigh facts that were in evidence"). You can't appeal just because you don't like the result.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Reminds me of the Scopes Monkey Trial , when the defendant was only vindicated with the the technicality of the judge (in spite of himself, I'm sure, if the transcripts are anything to go by) having set the fine against Scopes, rather than the jury (yet the law still stood firm, with teaching of evolution being illegal in Tennessee until 1968).

[Hux]

[edger]

That photo of Rumsfeld just made my day!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

The smoke going up the nose does it for me .

[edger]

He's thinking "ahhh... yeahhh... that's the shiiit"!

[M.O.B.E]

Score this as stupidity

Toronto's drug squad raided the Beach's Assembly of the Church of the Universe yesterday for allegedly illegally selling the marijuana its members consider a sacrament.

Among the more than two dozen people arrested at the Queen St. E. centre near Woodbine Ave. was its leader, Rev. Peter Styrsky, 48, a Toronto mayoral candidate.

He's been charged with trafficking and conspiracy to traffic.

It's the second time police raided the church within a year for allegedly breaching the limits of its licence allowing it to possess marijuana.

Police allege the church was selling the drug to members, something the federal permit doesn't allow.

Det. Scott Matthews said all items associated with marijuana smoking will be seized from the store, along with the plants from the basement grow operation.

"There's only a certain amount of plants that they're allowed to have, only for personal possession, and they can't sell it," Matthews said.

A SACRAMENT

The church promotes the use of marijuana and uses it as a sacrament.

Project B-17 was launched Sept. 18, and undercover officers posing as a couple became members of the controversial church.

Members pay $25 for a laminated membership card bearing a picture which is required for entrance to the building, police said.

Last night, police arrested 17 people after they allegedly purchased packets of marijuana within a 70 minute period. Most were issued forms ordering to appear in court on a charge of possessing marijuana.

Matthews said police have received numerous complaints about the traffic in and out of the building.

"Thanks a lot," one woman said to an officer as she jogged past the building.

"I don't think it's a church," joked a neighbour who didn't want to be named. "I smell something. I think it's incense from a ceremony."

The man described Styrsky and his wife as a loving couple and good parents to their three children, the oldest being 12.

"They're arresting us. They're dragging us away in handcuffs," church member Zenon Michael said as he was led towards a police cruiser.

Michael, who was charged with trafficking, said he has a federal licence allowing for the use of marijuana for medical purposes

[AdamH]

I learned something interesting from M.O.B.E's article.

when you insert "the" before Marijuana (Par. 1) it makes it seem alot cooler.

Here's an example: "Do you like to smoke marijuana?" versus "Do you like to smoke THE marijuana?"