When the Jury is Prevented from Knowing the Law

How can justice be served when the jury is prevented from knowing the defendants side of the story? Even more unconscionable is when the law is on their side and the judge prevents the jury from hearing that information. Newreview.com takes a look at a federal marijuana case and includes an honest nullification discussion:

He was less generous whenever the defense tried to bring in what they felt was at the heart of the case: Proposition 215 and the fact that the people of California had rejected federal law and adopted their own medical-marijuana law.

He also struck legitimate considerations:

Indeed, Judge Damrell told Serra he had “crossed the line” after Serra asked the jury to consider that the case was biased, a political prosecution emanating from Washington, D.C. Such bias, he said, constituted reasonable doubt.

The couple was convicted in less than three hours and will appeal. The penalties are absurdly harsh, and enough by themselves to cause any thinking man to nullify:

The defense says there were never 100 plants at any one time. Remember, the DEA only found 34 when they raided the couple’s home, which they argue is consistent with the “reasonable personal use” provisions of Proposition 215. But federal law allows the jury to add up all the plants that were grown “over the course of the conspiracy,” in this case three years.