From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: It was a most remarkable trial event in Montreal. Adrian Stuerm   
   grew 65 plants in his garage (and had 24 clones in the basement).   
   There had been a fire in the garage, the firemen saw the pot plants   
   and had to call the cops who had to come and charge them with S.7   
   Production and S.5(2) Possession for the Purpose in St-Jerome.   
      
   Ray heard about them and helped them put up a self-defence. The Quash   
   Motion got put off to the Trial Judge, another judge who didn't know   
   how S.601 worked, and Adrian also filed a Charter Motion, and his   
   trial was expedited to May 8-12 in Montreal.   
      
   Justice Boucher exhibited some confusion over the motions thinking   
   they were both constitutional and dismissed the actual constitutional   
   Charter Motion. There'd been a glitch and Adrian had actually filed an   
   older challenge to the MMAR, so we're not going to appeal that failure   
   to follow Parker.   
      
   What's interesting is that the S.5(2) charge is coming up on June 20   
   in St-Jerome in lower court. It didn't get a jury trial like the   
   production charge did. So Adrian will file the updated Charter   
   challenge that includes all sections from all three regimes for that   
   charge!   
      
   And we get to appeal the failure to do Parker in the Quash motion. But   
   it wasn't actually dismissed in the pre-trial decision.   
      
   MONDAY   
      
   With Crowns Eric Cote and Pierre Alexandre Krupa, it opened with with   
   the judge's talk to the assembled 300 potential jurors. Then they   
   switched to a smaller court where the jurors who had been chosen by   
   lot went to be interviewed or excused. A quick 40 were excused and   
   they handled 20 possibles before noon. The Crown rejected 9 (out of   
   12) and though I'd told them not to bother, Caroline rejected a   
   couple, one an older lady who had a nasty look about her. So what, she   
   had the right not to have someone who gives off the wrong vibes on her   
   jury. And another was let off, so only 8 picked before lunch. After   
   lunch, they got the last four.   
      
   Adrian had informed the court that he wasn't going to be opposing the   
   facts, had already made voluntary statements and was willing to admit   
   to the facts. The judge admitted he wasn't sure who had the onus,   
   whether Adrian make his admissions and the Crown would accept the ones   
   they wanted or the other way around, the Crown says what they want and   
   he accepts the ones he'll admit. But he did it right anyway by   
   ordering the Crown to draw up the Statement of Agreed Facts which   
   could be signed before the start of trial the next day. Couldn't very   
   well order Adrian to draw it up.   
      
   The Crown suggested that he re-opt for judge alone if he was going to   
   admit the facts and leave nothing for the jury to decide. I later told   
   the CBC the reason for going to a jury is hoping to find one who won't   
   find them guilty of a crime because they don't think it's a crime. She   
   asked what's the use of a mistrial? "Next time, it might be all 12 for   
   jury nullification."   
      
   So the judge explained to the jury that things had just speeded up. He   
   pointed out that Adrian was going to be appealing against the law, not   
   against the facts, so there would be no opposition to the facts.   
      
   TUESDAY   
      
   The judge handed out a transcript of his dismissal of the Charter   
   Motion. That's when I realized that Adrian had challenged the MMAR   
   while the MMPR was in force. So no appeal on that one. Glad the judge   
   stuck it in my face.   
      
   Adrian had mistakenly asked for time to appeal before being sentenced   
   without realizing you can't appeal without the sentence. He just   
   wanted it put off to prepare. But the judge said he could not wait for   
   any appeal though he'd take his time about it.   
      
   But I'd told Adrian to ask him to sign off on the Quash motion so we   
   could appeal the court not following Parker whether the law was already   
   dead even if we blew our Charter move to kill it if it needed   
   killing right now. But that's the first time he seemed to get   
   flustered, finding out that there was a motion Adrian wanted to have   
   signed off on. He started to look up S.601 in the Criminal Code but   
   then, thinking it was constitutional like the Charter motion, he just   
   ordered his decision be amended to dismiss the S.601 motion too. He   
   really should have read it first. But that gets not following Parker   
   into his appeal.   
      
   A lady reporter showed up for the 9:30 trial. After the Crown had   
   pointed out they were going to be showing pictures of the plantation,   
   she passed up a note asking the judge if the media could get access to   
   the pictures. Sure, right after they're entered into evidence. Didn't   
   notice a story of the only pot jury trial they've ever seen. Remember,   
   CBC didn't cover the dismissal of the motions at the time to not   
   influence the jury pool!   
      
   Think about that, no one goes to jury trial for a pot charge. So   
   Nicola Fontana, Adrian Stuerm and Max Gauthier/Martin Gendron/Eric   
   Gravel will probably be the first and last ever jury trials for pot.   
      
   So the judge let the Crown present some evidence even though it was   
   all admitted. The Statement included what their witnesses would have   
   said. All true. So they signed. But he wanted to make his   
   presentation. When he got into how the system worked between the   
   firemen, police, etc., I left and went out to nap in the hall. When I   
   woke and checked, the jury were gone and so I went back in time for   
   the start of the Summation to the Jury.   
      
   The Crown started with "Why are they charged with a crime?" I thought,   
   good question though I was thinking "what's criminal about gardening"   
   and he was thinking "what statutes did they break?" He mentioned the   
   "ampleur de la plantation," the largeness (half a garage) but in   
   previous presentations had called it a small operation. But now it's   
   "ampleur!"   
      
   Then the judge asked each if they had anything to say to the jury? No.   
   No. Both said nothing. So he started his instructions to the jury   
   about how the law worked and then adjourned until the morning when   
   they should come back in the morning with their valises of personal   
   belongings in case of sequestration overnight.   
      
   Caroline was listening to the Crown being interviewed and when asked   
   how the max sentence they faced, he said 14 years. Caroline didn't   
   know so that shook her. She asked the investigating officer if that   
   was right, he said yes but not for people like her. You could tell he   
   wasn't happy after describing the pleasant place for kids to live   
   seen in the photos. I quipped to him: Not as much fun as busting   
   robbers, is it? It wasn't. Plus he'd wasted days.   
      
   So, since Wednesday was only going to be sending the jury off, waiting   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)