Jump to content

Archie Kiel's Affirmative Defense Ruling Made In Judge's Chambers


Eric L. VanDussen
 Share

Recommended Posts

This footage ( http://www.upnorthmedia.org/watchupnorthtv.asp?SDBFid=2246#vid ) is of a pretrial ruling that occurred immediately prior to jury selection. Kalkaska County Circuit Court Judge Janet M. Allen ruled in chambers that Kiel's attorney cannot argue to the jury, or discuss any information, regarding the affirmative defense section of Michigan's Medical Marihuana Act.

 

I know it's normal for defense attorneys and prosecutors to meet in chambers to discuss various issues. However, I've never before seen a judge say that a video of the in chambers' arguments, and their ultimate decision, was the official record.

 

Archie Kiel said that on several occasions prior to this occurring, he had specifically instructed his attorney, Ross Hickman, to stop discussing his case in the judge's chambers without him being present.

 

Hickman refused to abide by Kiel's request, and continued to gather with the prosecutor and judge to discuss the applicability of the affirmative defense in his case.

 

Kiel said on Friday that he fired Hickman earlier this week and that Mike Maddaloni will now be handling his sentencing hearing. He also indicated that Maddaloni will be immediately filing motions to adjourn and stay his sentence pending the outcome of his appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an attorney so don't even pretend to know the full implications of the judger's actions, but to a layman it appears that the Affirmative Defense is a non-starter. Maybe someone with legal training will explicate the meaning of the judge's refusal to allow the AD to be mentioned in court; it has meaning only for this one case alone or did it just cut the AD loose from any mooorings we previously believed it had?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This footage ( http://www.upnorthmedia.org/watchupnorthtv.asp?SDBFid=2246#vid ) is of a pretrial ruling that occurred immediately prior to jury selection. Kalkaska County Circuit Court Judge Janet M. Allen ruled in chambers that Kiel's attorney cannot argue to the jury, or discuss any information, regarding the affirmative defense section of Michigan's Medical Marihuana Act.

 

I know it's normal for defense attorneys and prosecutors to meet in chambers to discuss various issues. However, I've never before seen a judge say that a video of the in chambers' arguments, and their ultimate decision, was the official record.

 

Archie Kiel said that on several occasions prior to this occurring, he had specifically instructed his attorney, Ross Hickman, to stop discussing his case in the judge's chambers without him being present.

 

Hickman refused to abide by Kiel's request, and continued to gather with the prosecutor and judge to discuss the applicability of the affirmative defense in his case.

 

Kiel said on Friday that he fired Hickman earlier this week and that Mike Maddaloni will now be handling his sentencing hearing. He also indicated that Maddaloni will be immediately filing motions to adjourn and stay his sentence pending the outcome of his appeal.

Wasnt Judge Allen a visiting circuit court judge from the neighboring county of Crawford?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know about this case But am no Lawyer so i know that he had 3 cards and two paperworks right ?

 

and i hope this Lawyer knows about are case if not PM me and i can give you my # or he can call Rob Mullen at 248-626-9700 EXT: 9711

 

Archie good luck Man i hope you WIN i just don't know why you are still in court the AD is solid they will see it maybe better then the letter of the Law i think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know about this case But am no Lawyer so i know that he had 3 cards and two paperworks right ?

 

and i hope this Lawyer knows about are case if not PM me and i can give you my # or he can call Rob Mullen at 248-626-9700 EXT: 9711

 

Archie good luck Man i hope you WIN i just don't know why you are still in court the AD is solid they will see it maybe better then the letter of the Law i think

 

 

and they would not even let him use the AD what a sad deal he is going to WIN this now in the court of Appeals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...