OUTRAGE TRANSLATES TO ACTION

After the second-degree murder conviction a week ago of Kim Walker,
the dad who gunned down a 24-year-old drug dealer living with his
16-year-old daughter, many Saskatchewanians are speaking out.

We fielded dozens of calls on my radio show. Most were sympathetic to
Walker, while others saw this as a man taking the law into his own
hands and literally playing judge, jury and executioner.

Like the divided moral debate over farmer Robert Latimer killing his
disabled daughter, the cases are similar because they involve
discussion about juries and they illustrate that ordinary people
sitting on juries don't know enough about the unique powers of jurors
in a criminal trial.

Jury members do not have to convict, even in the face of overwhelming
evidence. They can choose to set aside the law.

The Supreme Court of Canada put it this way: "Juries are not entitled
as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law -- but they do have
the power to do so when their consciences permit no other course."

Three hundred years ago, jurors who made decisions disagreeable to
the judge could find themselves in the Star Chamber, punished by jail
or worse. Today no one can punish a juror or even find out what
happens in the jury deliberations, assuming there's nothing illegal
like jury tampering.

But while jurors have this remarkable power, the law prevents anyone
in the courtroom from telling them they have it.

Jury members cannot be told that they can refuse to apply the law --
they just have to figure it out themselves. So, as a lesson for an
informed populace, if you ever serve on a jury -- know this!

In reinforcing this power, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that
the verdict must always be that of the jury, not the judge -- unless
the judge directs the jury to acquit because of insufficient evidence.

But the opposite is not true. Even with overwhelming evidence, a
judge cannot direct a verdict of guilty. That is the jury's job alone.

In the Walker trial, Justice Jennifer Pritchard directed the jury to
convict Walker of at least the offence of manslaughter. Whether this
error of law will warrant a new trial for Walker is up to the
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The Walker family faces an expensive
legal appeal and a second trial, if one is ordered.

Supporters have set up a legal defence trust fund at the Yorkton
branch of Scotiabank in Walker's name and donations can be made at
any Scotiabank branch.

The website www.kimwalkerstory.com also answers a number of questions
about this controversial case.