Ganja guru gets shafted--again
This from the Associated Press:
Fortunately, Rosenthal has already served a one-day sentence on the earlier conviction, which was voided, so he doesn't face any additional prison time.
The simple fact of the conviction is troubling, however. Rosenthal's case was as widely publicized--especially in California--as any case could be. It's virtually inconceivable that nobody on that jury knew that Rosenthal was growing marijuana for medical purposes, on behalf of the City of Oakland, and that several jurors who brought the earlier guilty verdict publicly repudiated their verdict and called for Rosenthal's release. At least some of the jurors must have encountered widespread calls for jury nullification in the case--that is, for jurors to bring a "not guilty" verdict in defiance of the federal law.
All it would have taken was one juror willing to hold his or her ground to hang the jury and let Rosenthal go free--in a political climate very supportive of doing exactly that.
But the jury convicted. What went wrong?
Well, the process of screening jurors for "unacceptable" views has become more sophisticated with the years, and the government certainly exercised every effort to assure itself of a compliant jury. According to earlier news reports:
People disgusted by the prosecution had an easy out--they needed only be honest about their opinions to be booted from the jury pool.
But not one juror of the bunch was willing to hold fast to a "not guilty vote"?
That suggests a disturbingly--and uniformly--submissive group of jurors, willing to kowtow to the government even when a large part of the population from which the jurors are drawn is upset by the case. That leaves three possibilities:
The first possibility seems unlikely given the media circus surrounding the Rosenthal case.
The second and third possibilities are more likely, and very disturbing since they suggest that the voir dire process has become such an effective filter that it is capable of screening out all independent-minded jurors. That would reduce juries to little more than rubber stamps.
I've always been a booster of jury nullification as a check on the power of the state, but if the Rosenthal case is any indication, judges and prosecutors are becoming more effective at preventing independent-minded citizens from getting into a position to use the power of the jury.
Ed Rosenthal, the self-proclaimed "guru of ganja," was convicted again Wednesday in federal court of illegally growing hundreds of marijuana plants that he said were meant to treat sick people, which state law allows.
Rosenthal was convicted of three cultivation and conspiracy charges after U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer prohibited the marijuana activist's lawyers from telling the jury Rosenthal was working for a pot club sanctioned by Oakland government officials. The decision underscored the tension between federal law and laws in 11 states that have legalized pot to some degree.
Fortunately, Rosenthal has already served a one-day sentence on the earlier conviction, which was voided, so he doesn't face any additional prison time.
The simple fact of the conviction is troubling, however. Rosenthal's case was as widely publicized--especially in California--as any case could be. It's virtually inconceivable that nobody on that jury knew that Rosenthal was growing marijuana for medical purposes, on behalf of the City of Oakland, and that several jurors who brought the earlier guilty verdict publicly repudiated their verdict and called for Rosenthal's release. At least some of the jurors must have encountered widespread calls for jury nullification in the case--that is, for jurors to bring a "not guilty" verdict in defiance of the federal law.
All it would have taken was one juror willing to hold his or her ground to hang the jury and let Rosenthal go free--in a political climate very supportive of doing exactly that.
But the jury convicted. What went wrong?
Well, the process of screening jurors for "unacceptable" views has become more sophisticated with the years, and the government certainly exercised every effort to assure itself of a compliant jury. According to earlier news reports:
In jury selection Monday, nearly two-thirds of prospective jurors were dismissed after saying they could not be impartial in a trial involving marijuana.
Among them was ousted Sharper Image Corp. CEO Richard Thalheimer, who told the court he believed the case was "an unfortunate scapegoating" of Rosenthal for political reasons.
“I think it's tremendously unfortunate that my time is being wasted and our taxpayers' money is being wasted,” Thalheimer said, according to a court transcript.
People disgusted by the prosecution had an easy out--they needed only be honest about their opinions to be booted from the jury pool.
But not one juror of the bunch was willing to hold fast to a "not guilty vote"?
That suggests a disturbingly--and uniformly--submissive group of jurors, willing to kowtow to the government even when a large part of the population from which the jurors are drawn is upset by the case. That leaves three possibilities:
- The court somehow found jurors entirely unfamiliar with the case and with the controversy over medical marijuana.
- The court selected only those jurors supportive of the federal prosecution.
- The court selected jurors unwilling to buck the government despite their own views.
The first possibility seems unlikely given the media circus surrounding the Rosenthal case.
The second and third possibilities are more likely, and very disturbing since they suggest that the voir dire process has become such an effective filter that it is capable of screening out all independent-minded jurors. That would reduce juries to little more than rubber stamps.
I've always been a booster of jury nullification as a check on the power of the state, but if the Rosenthal case is any indication, judges and prosecutors are becoming more effective at preventing independent-minded citizens from getting into a position to use the power of the jury.
Labels: drugs and prohibition
posted by J.D. Tuccille at
2:36 PM
2 Comments:
The voir dire process has indeed become an effective filter, heavily weighted on the prosecutor's side. At that, Rosenthal is lucky the feds didn't throw in a support of terrorists charge.
Criminal defense attorney Marc Victor has argued for years that although he would like to rely on FIJA and the assumptions underlying it, he cannot. The State myth has made too many inroads into the minds of the potential juror. Overt, procedural jury rigging by the prosecution & judge is merely insurance. If you control the prisoners' minds, who needs bars?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home