KRIEGER VOWS TO APPEAL POT CONVICTION

Cannabis crusader Grant Krieger is vowing to continue his compassion
club despite being convicted of trafficking after an unparalleled,
compelling courtroom scene.

"I have no choice but to," Krieger said in an interview Thursday, one
day after his conviction. "The people I help would have to go into the
street for this (marijuana). Nobody should have to go into the street
for this, especially when you're ill."

Krieger, who lives on a disability pension, has permission from the
federal government to use the illicit weed to treat his own multiple
sclerosis. Krieger said he plans to appeal the conviction.

Local legal experts say the ending of the trial was unprecedented in
Calgary.

"It's most unusual," said Alain Hepner, a high-profile criminal
lawyer. "It's seldom that we'll see a jury so rebellious against a
judge. . . . It's a reflection of the jury's compassion for the
individual and the jury's confusion with the state of the law in Canada."

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Paul Chrumka directed the jury to find
the 49-year-old Calgarian guilty of possessing marijuana for the
purpose of trafficking.

Courtroom observers thought the process would take a few minutes, but
after seven hours the jury was still deadlocked. At that point, a man
and woman asked if they could be excused because they couldn't vote
against their conscience. The man wept while explaining his
predicament.

Chrumka ordered them to return to deliberations and render a guilty
verdict, which they did 21/2 hours later.

Chrumka then sentenced Krieger to one day in jail, which he won't have
to serve -- he spent 16 days in the Remand Centre in 1999 when he was
arrested on the charge. Chrumka said the father of three had broken
the law but did so on compassionate grounds, to supply marijuana to
other sufferers whose symptoms are alleviated by taking the drug.

The federal government had promised to address the issue of
decriminalizing marijuana for certain circumstances, but the session
of parliament ended without a new law.

"It's a confusing situation," Hepner said. "It's confusing for the
public. It's confusing for individual jurors who have their own views
on the matter and it's confusing because of the sympathy for Krieger's
situation."

Balfour Der, who spent a decade as a Crown prosecutor before becoming
a defence counsel 13 years ago, said the two jurors probably felt they
had no other choice but to ask to be relieved of their duty.

"It would be about the only way they could voice their opposition,
short of acquitting the man," he said.

Der, who wrote a popular textbook about criminal jury trials, added he
had never seen a jury react that way in Calgary.

Chris Levy, an expert on legal history, said the judge's directive was
uncommon, but the jurors' reaction to it was extraordinary.

"The jury's reaction was extremely unusual, at least in anything
remotely resembling modern times," said the faculty of law professor
at the University of Calgary.

"The instruction given by the judge is certainly unusual now, although
it was something that was much more common 20 to 30 years ago."

Krieger's lawyer, Adriano Iovinelli, was surprised by what transpired
in the courtroom.

"I've never seen a jury being that defiant in relation to a direction
from the court," he said Thursday.

"They were obviously battling with what the law says and what their
hearts said. . . . Having a jury member break down and cry, that was a
very difficult situation to be in."

Local pot users were critical of the judge.

"I thought it was ridiculous," said Dave Lee, a 22-year-old store
clerk.

"Two of the jury members said they couldn't make the decision and then
they were forced to go back in. It takes away a lot of the strength of
the legal system, forcing people into a decision. It's their role as a
jury to make a decision."

John, who didn't give his last name, agreed.

"If the judge is telling the jury how to react to the case, it's kind
of biased," said the 22-year-old homebuilder.

"The jury is spending 91/2 hours deliberating, so they're trying to
find him not guilty, and that should be the verdict."

Both the Crown and the defence have 30 days to file notice of appeal
regarding either the conviction or the sentence.