POT CRUSADER TO TEST CONCEPT OF JURY NULLIFICATION

OTTAWA -- An ill Alberta man who admits to growing and distributing
marijuana for medicinal purposes will challenge his drug trafficking
conviction in Supreme Court today in a test of how far juries can go
in acquitting people who openly break the law.

A lawyer for Grant Krieger, a longtime medical marijuana crusader,
will square off against Ottawa over a rare legal safety valve, called
jury nullification, which allows jurors to rule against a law in
exceptional cases.

Krieger, 51, was sentenced to a day in jail for being caught with 29
marijuana plants seven years ago. The Calgary man, who uses marijuana
to control multiple sclerosis, runs a "compassion club" to sell or
give marijuana for medical purposes.

He confessed at his trial but used the seldom successful defence of
necessity, arguing he had no choice but to break the law to ensure a
reliable supply of pot for patients who have federally approved
exemptions to use marijuana.

The judge in the case instructed the jurors to convict Krieger,
despite strong indications two jurors wanted to acquit him. "Jury
nullification runs contrary to the rule of law," federal lawyers
wrote in a legal brief submitted in the Supreme Court. "It is
animated by sentiment and sympathy rather than logic and consistency."

Although judges are supposed to encourage jurors to stick to the
letter of the law, Krieger's lawyer, John Hook, argues the Supreme
Court formally recognized jury nullification in the 1988 acquittal of
abortion doctor Henry Morgentaler. At the time, the bench described
the jury's power as "the citizen's ultimate protection against
oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law."

But 13 years later, in the case of Saskatchewan farmer Robert
Latimer, the Supreme Court took a narrower view.

"The law cannot ignore jury nullification," said the 2001 ruling that
refused to clear Latimer of a minimum mandatory life sentence for
killing his severely disabled daughter.