Putting juries to the test
The federal government is taking its second bite at the apple with a vindictive re-prosecution of medical marijuana guru Ed Rosenthal--a prosecution that can result in no prison sentence since he already served his time on the same charges prior to his conviction being overturned. Rosenthal is charged with growing plants for medical marijuana dispensaries--a legal act in California, but one that remains verboten under federal law.
The original case resulted in a better-late-than-never jury revolt once jurors were dismissed and discovered information about the case that had been withheld from them by the judge. Five of the jurors held a news conference, apologized to Rosenthal, and called for a new trial.
Now, for reasons unrelated to juror regret, that new trial is being held. It's occurring in an atmosphere of public controversy, with plenty of publicity. Jurors have been selected from a pool exposed to open discussion of Rosenthal's role as an Oakland-appointed grower and amidst calls for the new jury to find the defendant "not guilty" in defiance of federal law. As such, the new Rosenthal trial is a good test of whether jury nullification remains a viable check on the government and the legal system.
It's an open question. While jury nullification continues to be practiced--increasingly so, according to a 1999 Washington Post article--the government has stepped up its efforts to curtail the practice. Defiant jurors have been prosecuted, jurors are instructed that they must follow the law (a major point in the original Rosenthal trial) and the business of winnowing independent minds from the jury pool has become something of a science; nearly two-thirds of prospective jurors were dismissed from the new Rosenthal trial.
So the new trial will be a strong indicator of whether juries remain independent representatives of the people in the courtroom, or whether they can be effectively beaten into submission by judges and prosecutors. After all, if a jury won't put the law aside for Ed Rosenthal, who will it acquit?
Keep an eye on this case--and keep your fingers crossed.
The original case resulted in a better-late-than-never jury revolt once jurors were dismissed and discovered information about the case that had been withheld from them by the judge. Five of the jurors held a news conference, apologized to Rosenthal, and called for a new trial.
Now, for reasons unrelated to juror regret, that new trial is being held. It's occurring in an atmosphere of public controversy, with plenty of publicity. Jurors have been selected from a pool exposed to open discussion of Rosenthal's role as an Oakland-appointed grower and amidst calls for the new jury to find the defendant "not guilty" in defiance of federal law. As such, the new Rosenthal trial is a good test of whether jury nullification remains a viable check on the government and the legal system.
It's an open question. While jury nullification continues to be practiced--increasingly so, according to a 1999 Washington Post article--the government has stepped up its efforts to curtail the practice. Defiant jurors have been prosecuted, jurors are instructed that they must follow the law (a major point in the original Rosenthal trial) and the business of winnowing independent minds from the jury pool has become something of a science; nearly two-thirds of prospective jurors were dismissed from the new Rosenthal trial.
So the new trial will be a strong indicator of whether juries remain independent representatives of the people in the courtroom, or whether they can be effectively beaten into submission by judges and prosecutors. After all, if a jury won't put the law aside for Ed Rosenthal, who will it acquit?
Keep an eye on this case--and keep your fingers crossed.
posted by J.D. Tuccille at
7:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home