The judge in this case appears to have ruled correctly, but the law as it exists creates an imbalance. The defendant, Franklin Township resident John Ray Wilson, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, cannot testify about his disease — even though doing so would show jurors that the marijuana crop at issue was not grown for sale. By preventing such testimony, as his lawyer points out, the jury “could readily speculate that he was operating an illegal commercial grow operation and must have done so for years to develop a market for the marijuana.”
Omitting Wilson’s disease would keep him from addressing the issue of continuous use, one of the elements of operating a production facility. He would not be able to testify this was the first and only crop he has tried to grow, Wronko said.
Barring the medical-use argument, “is basically tying our hands unfairly,” Wronko said in court.
The court, however, was concerned that introducing the ailment would create a level of empathy that could lead to jury nullification — a jury ruling in favor of the defendant despite the law because it perceived the law to be unfair.
Jury nullification, however, is not a bad thing. Juries are the people’s representatives in the court, and should be given as much information as possible, allowing them to review mitigating circumstances and to not only judge the specific case at hand but whether the law itself achieves a public good.
Jury nullification in this case, rather than being a usurpation of the legislative function by the court, would act as a voice of the people, and possibly spur the Legislature to legalize so-called medical marijuana.
Instead, the judge has removed an important piece of the narrative, leaving Mr. Wilson to look like just some random drug producer, making it more difficult than it should be for him to defend himself.
Hank Kalet 