Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court strikes down conviction of pot activist
CBC News ^ | Thursday, October 26, 2006 | 2:09 PM ET | CBC News

Posted on 10/26/2006 12:44:07 PM PDT by glorgau

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.

Grant Krieger, shown speaking to reporters outside a Calgary courthouse in 2000, has won a new trial on his medical marijuana conviction. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press) "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.

Continue Article

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.


TOPICS: Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: jury; pot
Wow, the judge actually had the nerve to instruct the jury as to what verdict they should deliver.

Best I can think is that he wanted the opposite result as the verdict would get tossed out and could not be retried because of Double Jeopardy - if it works that way in Canada.

1 posted on 10/26/2006 12:44:11 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: glorgau
Wow, the judge actually had the nerve to instruct the jury as to what verdict they should deliver.

I think this is common in the British system of law. It's definitely not a good thing. I'd say I'm glad we don't have that here, but then again it's been said that a good DA can get a jury to indict a ham sandwich.
2 posted on 10/26/2006 12:48:49 PM PDT by JamesP81 (Rights must be enforced; rights that you're not allowed to enforce are rights that you don't have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

Hmmm....


3 posted on 10/26/2006 12:54:23 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

I see the WOD is picking on poor and sickly again. Go fight the cartels and leave this guy to his own misery.


4 posted on 10/26/2006 1:12:28 PM PDT by wolfcreek (A personal attack is the reaction of an exhausted and/or disturbed mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

... it's the end of civilization... the sick, dying and lame smoking medical pot then having sex with colored jazz musicians... oh, the horror...


5 posted on 10/26/2006 1:56:00 PM PDT by Lexington Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lexington Green

Unhhh, it ain't about the pot, it's about the judge telling the jury what to do.


6 posted on 10/26/2006 2:02:17 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

There are still a lot of Liberal judges in Canada's high courts. Harper hasn't been in power long enough to be able to weed them out. He's going to have tread lightly for a few years until he acomplishes this.


7 posted on 10/26/2006 2:02:45 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

They're what, 75% supreme?


8 posted on 10/26/2006 2:09:00 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Prayers for our patriot brother, 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub. Brian, we're all pulling for you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

It will take decades for that to happen.


9 posted on 10/26/2006 5:52:26 PM PDT by Heartofsong83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson