A KANGAROO COURT

'They Would Have Acquitted Me If They'd Been Permitted To Hear My Story'

John Adams, who would become our second president, said of the juror: "It
is not only his right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to
his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct
opposition to the direction of the court."

And we all know, of course, that juries are supposed to be randomly
selected, not stacked with those who will agree in advance to convict.

Yet in San Francisco last month, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer sorted
through 80 people before settling on 12 -- mostly out-of-towners -- who
appeared most likely to bring the conviction he sought against Oakland's
self-styled "pot guru," 58-year-old Ed Rosenthal.

After a two-week trial, that jury on Jan. 31 unanimously convicted Mr.
Rosenthal after finding as a matter of fact that he'd been growing more
than 100 pot plants, conspired to cultivate marijuana, and maintained an
Oakland warehouse for a growing operation.

Mr. Rosenthal and his attorneys presented little defense. That's because,
"Throughout the trial, (Judge) Breyer had refused all efforts by the
defense to disclose to the jury that Rosenthal was growing marijuana ...
for the city of Oakland's medical marijuana program, authorized under
California's Proposition 215, passed by the voters in 1996," points out
syndicated columnist Alexander Cockburn.

In other words, and as usual these days, the federal courts worked to
conceal as much of the truth of the case as they saw fit, to make sure the
jury made only a finding of fact, without being given any chance to decide
whether the federal law was being appropriately applied in Mr. Rosenthal's
case.

"Within hours of finding ... Rosenthal guilty on three felony counts of
conspiracy and marijuana cultivation," Mr. Cockburn relates, "a sobbing
juror was overheard saying she and others jurors had been terrified that
... Breyer would throw them in prison if they had found Rosenthal innocent,
although she herself had had a strong disposition to do so. ...

"Breyer effectively denied Rosenthal the most basic right of all, that of
being able to confront his accusers," Mr. Cockburn points out. "The
inability to confront your accuser means in essence you have to endure the
accusations of the state, without the ability to respond."

Learning only after the trial that Mr. Rosenthal (who now faces up to 85
years in federal prison) had been authorized by Oakland to grow marijuana
for medical patients properly registered with the city to receive the pot,
juror Marney Craig further commented: "I feel like I made the biggest
mistake in my life. We convicted a man who is not a criminal."

Jury foreman Charles Sackett, 51, of Sebastopol, said he hopes Rosenthal's
case is overturned on appeal.

"Of course the jury, like all juries, had the right to consult their
consciences and set the law aside," points out Mr. Cockburn, "but such is
the deplorable state of civics instruction today, and such is the
dictatorial propensity of judges and the hostility or indifference of elite
opinion that the fundamental principle of jury discretion, the foundation
stone of freedom, is barely known."

Mr. Rosenthal called Breyer's courtroom a "kangaroo court." It was.