JURIES HAVE NO 'RIGHT' TO IGNORE THE LAW

Editor -- The Feb. 19 Open Forum article by Edith Appel and Alexandra Cox,
otherwise identified only as working for the "Office of Legal Affairs for
Drug Policy Alliance," flouts one's expectation from attorneys at law who
are sworn officers of the court, if indeed the authors are lawyers rather
than transparent advocates of legalization of marijuana and other
narcotics. Their screed that jurors should disregard the law and decide
cases on their own version of the law represents an invidious debasing of
our judicial system.

They cite a reputed 1804 entreaty by Alexander Hamilton, demanding that
jurors ignore a judge's instructions on the law and acquit if "they have a
clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong." Unfortunately, they
forget to inform readers that Hamilton's supposed injunction is not the law
of our country or our state. It is no more than an alleged rumination much
like numerous other now unacceptable 19th century ruminations about such
subjects as the justification for slavery or election of U.S. senators by
state legislators rather than citizens.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, the implicit object of the writers'
wrath for his evidentiary rulings during a federal marijuana sale and
possession case in early February, did no more or less than our judicial
system expects: He properly directed jurors to find the facts and then
apply his accurate instructions on federal law to the facts. Contrary to
the glib, self-indulgent assurances of the writers, neither federal nor
state court juries possess "legal right" to disregard the law if they
dislike a particular statute.

Unlike the writers, jurors understand and obey the sworn oath which they
accept before commencing their grave duties in every criminal and civil
case. We do not live in an anarchy. Jurors understand that; the strident
writers of the infamous Feb. 19 article do not.

Judge Quentin L. Kopp

San Mateo Superior Court