Dismissal Sought In Marijuana Case

[Croppled1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTdon9Yka3g

DISMISSAL SOUGHT IN MARIJUANA CASE

By Scott Davis • GANNETT NEWS SERVICE • November 21, 2010


An Ingham County judge will decide whether to throw out charges against a man accused of illegally dealing medical marijuana in what could be a test case for how the herb can be dispensed in Michigan.

Circuit Judge James Giddings said Friday he would render his decision in the coming weeks after the attorney for the Rev. Frederick W. Dagit, 61, contended charges should be dismissed under a provision of the nearly two-year-old law on medical marijuana. Prosecutors asked Giddings to declare that provision unconstitutional.

Dagit, of Meridian Township, is charged with two counts of possession with intent to deliver between 11 and 99 pounds of marijuana; growing 20 or more marijuana plants; maintaining a drug house and misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

The key question is whether Dagit, who admits he supplied marijuana to the Green Leaf Smokers medical marijuana club in Williamstown Township, ought to stand trial on allegations that he agreed to buy 50 pounds of marijuana May 26 from an undercover police informant and kept 41 marijuana plants in his home. Dagit said 12 of the plants were to treat his own ailments.

The statute clearly sets limits on the amounts of marijuana allowed. Patients can grow up to 12 marijuana plants and have 2.5 ounces of marijuana for themselves, or a caregiver to grow up to 12 plants for up to five patients each.

But James White, Dagit's attorney, said the statute also states a judge "shall" dismiss charges if he or she finds the quantity of marijuana seized was necessary to medically treat a patient's ailment.

How much marijuana this means is unclear -- most witnesses Friday agreed -- but Dagit testified that the club dispensed "least 4 or 5 pounds" of marijuana daily at the club.

"These are very sick people. ... A hundred to 120 people used the facility on a daily basis," White said. "Was Mr. Dagit's behavior criminal? The marijuana the police brought to his house was going to be taken to the club."

But Assistant Prosecutor Guy Sweet dismissed the statute provision as "crazy," "ridiculous," vague and unenforceable, saying the judge should declare it unconstitutional.

"Somebody could park a pickup truck in their garage filled with bales of marijuana and say, 'This is amount of marijuana I need for treatment until I die,' " Sweet said. "This statute isn't fair to anybody. Nobody knows what it means, and nobody can enforce it."

Giddings questioned whether Sweet had standing to ask that the provision be declared unconstitutional because he isn't a defendant in the case.

Since the state implemented the marijuana act in April 2009, both patients who use medical marijuana and authorities have criticized the law as being overly vague. This year, a number of medical marijuana dispensaries have sprouted in Ingham County -- such as the Green Leaf Smokers Club -- although critics have maintained that the statute doesn't authorize their creation.

The Green Leaf club was raided by police the same day that Dagit was arrested, but authorities allowed the club to continue to operate.

Before the hearing, Terry Clark, a Williamston man who used to frequent the club as a medical marijuana patient, said he believes authorities unfairly targeted Dagit.

"The only reason they went after him was because they're mad the law was passed," Clark said. "( Dagit ) is outspoken. They don't like it when you're outspoken."

For more information and other related local stories please go to the source :

http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20101121/NEWS01/11210318/Dismissal-sought-in-marijuana-case

[bobandtorey]

so what would happen if the Law was declared unconstitutional to the people that are inn court?

[peanutbutter]

so what would happen if the Law was declared unconstitutional to the people that are inn court?

 

Those places that would be found to be unconstitutional would no longer be in effect. Those parts that are left would still be in effect.

[bobandtorey]

so if the AD was to be unconstitutional then it would no longer be in the MMA but the people that were flowering it at the time would go Free?

[DenturesLost]

Those places that would be found to be unconstitutional would no longer be in effect. Those parts that are left would still be in effect.

Not so fast. Clearly you are relying on the severability section in the MMA to make the statement above. However, that section is a useless waiver in the face of a constitutional challenge. You have a habit of attributing too much weight to that section as if it is all-controlling. If a portion of a law is found unconstitutional then the entire law can be struck for being unconstitutional. The severability section in the law would be of little value in determining whether the law still stands with the offending portion excised.

[Croppled1]

so what would happen if the Law was declared unconstitutional to the people that are inn court?

 

A question for the Lawyers , however since it passed the ballot requirements and it was voted in by the people how could that happen unless 6 cloned Bob Youngs makeup our Michigan Supreme Court ? The fact anyone would say such a thing to me shows how much the system is willing to corrupt itself for its own ends . The law isn't vague without reason it err's on the side of patients in every situation based on reasonable doubt by loose definition . The Judiciary ,Law Enforcement and other Institutions supporting prohibition have a hard time accepting Medicinal Cannabis is here to stay ,and the people involved are legal . Limits and qualifying conditions are also broad as situations differ so much . This whole community has existed for years hidden - locked up in family attic's and closets never spoken of with money cirulating only from it to the corrupt infrastructure designed to oppress it or underground . What a waste .

 

God Bless you two ...you are involved in one of the most ridiculous prosecutions at tax payer expense in the State . One that will eventually benefit all those with medicinal need . I am amazed to hear how many patients push on daily determined to survive as long as possible and be everything they can be within their limits ... they strive to right this wrong because of people like you .There is no Medal of Honor for those patient's rushing to aid their fallen comrades . No Purple Heart for those that are captured and injured in this war . How simple it is to clear up this whole mess just release the plant back to nature and go back to the presonal responsibillity honor system . Give the people their respect back . Were smarter then our rulers believe . A inclusive society is stronger then a divisive one . And hands pushed away from it into imposed exile , idleness with discontent a waste . It pains me to no end when I hear things like the response to a positve cannabis test of a high school student is they are immeadiately suspended with no chance of federal aid for College . It is so wrong . This current thinking that is being imposed must be exposed for what it is ( fascism) and defeated .

[Hempcheff]

 

This is a case I have been waiting for. I have wondered, and expressed my curiosity about this in other threads.

 

"But James White, Dagit's attorney, said the statute also states a judge "shall" dismiss charges if he or she finds the quantity of marijuana seized was necessary to medically treat a patient's ailment."

 

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

IMHO

 

The prosecutor has to prove (rebutted by evidence = burden of proof shifts to prosecutor) that the medicine was was not intended for medical use.

 

Im sure most people on these forums can attest to 4-5#, hell, even 11# of marijuana being processed for different forms of ingestion, and results in a substantially lesser quantity.

 

The law could read 2.5 ounces of THC, as that is much more accurate description of the "usable marihuana" product , and is where the intent lies in the defense.

 

[DenturesLost]

This is a case I have been waiting for. I have wondered, and expressed my curiosity about this in other threads.

 

"But James White, Dagit's attorney, said the statute also states a judge "shall" dismiss charges if he or she finds the quantity of marijuana seized was necessary to medically treat a patient's ailment."

 

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

IMHO

 

The prosecutor has to prove (rebutted by evidence = burden of proof shifts to prosecutor) that the medicine was was not intended for medical use.

 

Im sure most people on these forums can attest to 4-5#, hell, even 11# of marijuana being processed for different forms of ingestion, and results in a substantially lesser quantity.

 

The law could read 2.5 ounces of THC, as that is much more accurate description of the "usable marihuana" product , and is where the intent lies in the defense.

Well the burden is on the defendant because the defendant must utilize the AD. You are reading from section 4 which assumes the defendant falls under section 4 coverage. He does not in this case because of the weight.

[+420Atheist]

But Assistant Prosecutor Guy Sweet dismissed the statute provision as "crazy," "ridiculous," vague and unenforceable, saying the judge should declare it unconstitutional.

 

I think they are saying that the part that says a judge may decide an amount over 2.5 oz is medically necessary is unconstitutional. I don't think they have a chance because being "ridiculous" is an opinion and not grounds for declaring something unconstitutional.

[bobandtorey]

All of the post may be true and this is why we are still inn court it's not about are Doc any more the PA is saying that we had to much

too many plants and too much Marihuana

this is why we are still inn court it would have cost the PA to much money to go after the Doc

the AD does not say how many or how much

[Hempcheff]

Well the burden is on the defendant because the defendant must utilize the AD. You are reading from section 4 which assumes the defendant falls under section 4 coverage. He does not in this case because of the weight.

 

he has a card and was registered at the time of the offense. section 4 does apply.

 

unless i missed the part where he was a dealer and not a patient,

[DenturesLost]

he has a card and was registered at the time of the offense. section 4 does apply.

 

unless i missed the part where he was a dealer and not a patient,

Read section 4.

[Hempcheff]

Read section 4.

 

and here we go again, thanks dentures

[Kingdiamond]

Dude is screwed.

[peanutbutter]

I think they are saying that the part that says a judge may decide an amount over 2.5 oz is medically necessary is unconstitutional. I don't think they have a chance because being "ridiculous" is an opinion and not grounds for declaring something unconstitutional.

 

An evidenceairy hearing is held outside the presence of a jury. (if wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me)

Yet the jury is supposed to be the decider of fact. (if wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me)

 

Some courts are attempting to eliminate the ability of the defense to present a case about "reasonable amounts" to a jury.

There is a chance that higher courts will determine that since "reasonable" is a judgment of fact, juries are also able to make that determination. Courts that have determined that section 8 dead ends at the evidence hearing are likely to have their decisions reversed.

 

Legally there are, at least, two points of reference the judge could rely on to determine this fact.

 

1. the voters of Michigan decided that 2.5 oz is reasonable for ANY qualified patient for ANY medical condition.

2. The federal government supplies eleven ounces every 23 days for patients receiving their medicine directly from the federal government.

 

Preponderance vs "beyond reasonable doubt"

 

First, statements made by the PA are not evidence. The defendant may testify "I use that much." Testimony is evidence. If the PA says "the defendant does not use that much." At this point, there is evidence in favor of the defendant and not the PA. Preponderance is met.

 

In most of the cases we've seen, the court is expecting the defense to present evidence "beyond reasonable doubt." This is far beyond a preponderance of evidence.

 

Before the start of the case a section 8 defense has the burden of proof on the defendant. Once one single iota of evidence has been presented by the defense, the burden shifts back to the state.

 

For the hearing process, the law specifies that "evidence" that a doctor has said .. A letter from the doctor is evidence. A ID card is evidence. Either letter or ID card is evidence that the doctor has indeed said these things. There is no requirement within section 8 that forces a doctor to testify. The standard that has been applied in many cases is the defendant has been required to provide proof, much more than just evidence.

 

Section 4 limits and counts are minimums for every medical marijuana case that gets into the court system. The voters made that determination already. The only times that quantities should be in question is when they are larger than those allowed under section 4.

 

Has a doctor said .. the test for that is did the doctor say this. Not if what the doctor said is factual. And the doctor is only required to guess. Again the letter and/or ID card is strong evidence that a doctor did indeed make such a guess.

 

Being used for their medical purpose. A simple statement by the defendant "it was for my medical purpose" would have to be refuted by evidence or opposing testimony. Such opposing testimony is currently expected to be supplied by the defense. The defense is expected to provide the doctor so the PA has the opportunity to use the doctor against the defendant.

 

Why doesn't anyone see a problem with the defendant being required to supply the PA with evidence to convict themselves?

 

There are two parts about "reasonable supply." One part is that "reasonable amount" the other is for an "uninterrupted supply." I have yet to hear a case in which the defendant says something like "I consume an ounce per day. I get a check every thirty days. So I need thirty ounces to get from one check to the next." Or "I consume one ounce per day. I grow one crop per year outdoors. So I need 365 ounces to get me from one harvest to the next."

 

All of that is about the limits for a patient.

 

Section 8 also applies to unregistered caregivers. Greenleaf had more than one hundred people come through every day. These people all had their documentation. Therefore every one of them had a minimum of 2.5 oz as a reasonable amount at any instant in time. To insure an uninterrupted supply for those people would require much more than 250 ounces.

 

A case can be presented in this case.

[pic book]

Peanutbutter

 

Wow! This is certainly close and detailed reasoning, like a bar exam problem, alot to follow and I'm not sure I did.

 

However I did note your assertion #2: federal government when directly supplying to patients gives 11 ounces every 23 days. That's 10.91 pounds per year, or thereabouts.

 

I have seen previously from University of MS federal research reports 6.72 pounds per year. Guess they uppped it. If the Fed medicates you they do it up right.

 

You got a link on 11 ounces per 23 days? If so, thanks.

[peanutbutter]

Peanutbutter

 

Wow! This is certainly close and detailed reasoning, like a bar exam problem, alot to follow and I'm not sure I did.

 

However I did note your assertion #2: federal government when directly supplying to patients gives 11 ounces every 23 days. That's 10.91 pounds per year, or thereabouts.

 

I have seen previously from University of MS federal research reports 6.72 pounds per year. Guess they uppped it. If the Fed medicates you they do it up right.

 

You got a link on 11 ounces per 23 days? If so, thanks.

 

OK .. good .. 6.72 pounds per year. I'll accept your number rather than trying to locate any other number. Shouldn't a judge be willing to accept what a federal program considers to be a reasonable amount?

 

It has been proposed that there be a standard procedure where the doctor be required to testify in every mmj case.

 

That requires ignoring rights and protections provided by the fifth amendment, HIPPA, and the confidentiality section of the MMMA. To breach those protections requires a compelling reason. Compelling enough to violate those protections. The fact that the PA suspects they will get a marijuana conviction does not seem to be a very compelling reason. These are not cases about 911 terrorists. This is not national security.

 

This is only the PAs "I got a feeling." When did that become compelling enough to violate the US constitution?

 

Compelling would have to be on a case by case basis. Not a standard procedure.

[Guest Happy Guy]

We (should) all know that this really isn't our test case for continuous supply. Let's get real. A test case for continuous legal supply would be better to be like a patient caught with a pound or under. This is the worse possible case to use as a test case for this. Like a Christmas present for a prosecutor, wrapped up with a bow. Like trying to make a brick fly like a kite. Until we have a more genuine test case we will still wonder how the law about continuous supply will turn out. Sorry Leo, it's not going to be that easy. Lets not confuse the continuous supply issue with the transfer issue. We lose if either fails here. We need clear cases for both. Not one ugly one that kills both. Pick your battles well in this time of clarification. Good luck to the Rev. but he's not my test case, sorry.

[peanutbutter]

This is a case where the entire event could not have taken place without the police.

 

The police fronted him more than a hundred pounds for the purpose of supplying patients and caregivers.

 

Fronted ..

 

Rev Wayne would never have had the money to purchase. It was outside the realm of possibility, without the event being financed by the police.

[bobandtorey]

Pick your battles well in this time of clarification. we may be a test case all wrapped up in one the courts are going after us for too many plants and to much MMJ on hand

[+RevThad]

The quantities discussed in this case aren't all that crazy, when averaged out for the daily turnover by members. 5 pounds per day spread across the 120 patients that visit each day, comes out to less than 19 grams per patient per day. So the 50 pounds the police provided would only be a 10 day supply...

 

As for the amount distributed each month...

It is hard to get an exact figure but it is 300 cigarettes weighing approximately .7994 grams each.. or close to 8.6 ounces per month.

 

Now on to the fun bit, the claim that the law is unconstitutional, or portions of it are. First the PA would have to show standing, not even sure the PA could qualify for standing in such a challenge. It would be hard enough for a city or county to show standing in such a constitutional challenge, and it could at least be argued that they have some direct financial(enforcement) stake in the matter. For the sake of argument though, lets assume that standing was granted in the matter, the question is where would such a challenge be made, under which constitution is the MMMAct (in part or total) to be deemed unconstitutional? It won't be at the federal level, as these types of challenges have already been attempted and handled, and as you can see medical marijuana is still alive and well out west. So that leaves the state level...

 

So on the state level what would be the grounds they would attempt to use for such a challenge? That the law is too broad or vague to be enforceable? This coming from the same folks that claim the law is very restrictive and limiting? Talk about playing both sides of the fence. So let's look at their potential argument: the AD is too vague to be enforced.

 

So how is the AD structured?

The AD sets specific limits on the who, what and where.

The who is anybody (patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any,) that can show a doctor has recommended marijuana for medical purposes.

The what is "engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana" for medical purposes.

The where is limited by Section 7.

 

There are clear limits on who is allowed to assert the AD, the conduct allowed is listed quite clearly, and the location at which that conduct can take place is clearly limited. The only part that could be considered remotely broad and vague are the quantities allowed, however that seems to be a subjective standard that will need to be decided case by case, with a bare minimum being the limits allowed under Section 4. As was noted earlier, the federal government seems to think that using 8.6 ounces a month is reasonable, otherwise they would not pay to have it grown, harvested, manicured, deseeded, and rolled. IF my math is right that is a little over a half pound a month (per patient).

 

Just my thoughts on this Monday...

[bobandtorey]

Thanks but what chance does he have when they are saying we had to much and we were under plants and Meds as to 12 and 2.5 oz

[DenturesLost]

This is a case where the entire event could not have taken place without the police.

 

The police fronted him more than a hundred pounds for the purpose of supplying patients and caregivers.

 

Fronted ..

 

Rev Wayne would never have had the money to purchase. It was outside the realm of possibility, without the event being financed by the police.

The FBI fronted the van bomber all of the "explosives" too so he could blow up the x-mas tree lighting event. Fronting a product isn't the issue. The issue is the intent to break the law. The only way to catch the van bomber was to put him in a position where he committed substantial acts in furtherance of his goal. And keep in mind that the substantial acts in furtherance are necessary and not just a desire. A desire to bomb someone isn't illegal. So the FBI fronted the "bomb." That's how a sting works. If the suspect didn't have the intent then fronting a "bomb" wouldnt be an issue. And, if the FBI didn't act and he got his hands on a real bomb then lookout crowd. Those acts in furtherance will support the attempt charge. Because desiring to bomb someone isn't a crime then he needed to be provided with the means to see if he actually had the balls to carry it out. This is how we keep society safe. Picking out one sting operation because you didn't like the outcome doesn't work. How about we abolish all sting operations and just live in anarchy? You think the country is bad now...?

[DenturesLost]

An evidenceairy hearing is held outside the presence of a jury. (if wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me)

Yet the jury is supposed to be the decider of fact. (if wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me)

 

Some courts are attempting to eliminate the ability of the defense to present a case about "reasonable amounts" to a jury.

There is a chance that higher courts will determine that since "reasonable" is a judgment of fact, juries are also able to make that determination. Courts that have determined that section 8 dead ends at the evidence hearing are likely to have their decisions reversed.

 

Legally there are, at least, two points of reference the judge could rely on to determine this fact.

 

1. the voters of Michigan decided that 2.5 oz is reasonable for ANY qualified patient for ANY medical condition.

2. The federal government supplies eleven ounces every 23 days for patients receiving their medicine directly from the federal government.

 

Preponderance vs "beyond reasonable doubt"

 

First, statements made by the PA are not evidence. The defendant may testify "I use that much." Testimony is evidence. If the PA says "the defendant does not use that much." At this point, there is evidence in favor of the defendant and not the PA. Preponderance is met.

 

In most of the cases we've seen, the court is expecting the defense to present evidence "beyond reasonable doubt." This is far beyond a preponderance of evidence.

 

Before the start of the case a section 8 defense has the burden of proof on the defendant. Once one single iota of evidence has been presented by the defense, the burden shifts back to the state.

 

For the hearing process, the law specifies that "evidence" that a doctor has said .. A letter from the doctor is evidence. A ID card is evidence. Either letter or ID card is evidence that the doctor has indeed said these things. There is no requirement within section 8 that forces a doctor to testify. The standard that has been applied in many cases is the defendant has been required to provide proof, much more than just evidence.

 

Section 4 limits and counts are minimums for every medical marijuana case that gets into the court system. The voters made that determination already. The only times that quantities should be in question is when they are larger than those allowed under section 4.

 

Has a doctor said .. the test for that is did the doctor say this. Not if what the doctor said is factual. And the doctor is only required to guess. Again the letter and/or ID card is strong evidence that a doctor did indeed make such a guess.

 

Being used for their medical purpose. A simple statement by the defendant "it was for my medical purpose" would have to be refuted by evidence or opposing testimony. Such opposing testimony is currently expected to be supplied by the defense. The defense is expected to provide the doctor so the PA has the opportunity to use the doctor against the defendant.

 

Why doesn't anyone see a problem with the defendant being required to supply the PA with evidence to convict themselves?

 

There are two parts about "reasonable supply." One part is that "reasonable amount" the other is for an "uninterrupted supply." I have yet to hear a case in which the defendant says something like "I consume an ounce per day. I get a check every thirty days. So I need thirty ounces to get from one check to the next." Or "I consume one ounce per day. I grow one crop per year outdoors. So I need 365 ounces to get me from one harvest to the next."

 

All of that is about the limits for a patient.

 

Section 8 also applies to unregistered caregivers. Greenleaf had more than one hundred people come through every day. These people all had their documentation. Therefore every one of them had a minimum of 2.5 oz as a reasonable amount at any instant in time. To insure an uninterrupted supply for those people would require much more than 250 ounces.

 

A case can be presented in this case.

The law specifically states that the AD is to be used at an evidentiary hearing. Thus, allowing "reasonable amounts" to go to the jury is contrary to the law. The judge decides the issue of the AD.

 

As far as an 'iota of evidence" shifting the burden, that's simply not true. The burden of proof is preponderance in the evidentiary hearing. It is the easiest burden for someone to meet in a court of law. The presentation of evidence does not shift the burden--the moving party still has the burden to prove by a preponderance. Furthermore, evidence presented doesn't necessarily prove anything. An "iota of evidence" could prove nothing at all. The judge conducts the hearing and determines the veracity of the evidence, be it testimonial, physical, etc. Presenting evidence doesn't do anything for you unless that evidence tends to either prove or help prove your case by a preponderance. Evidence can be more or less credible and be given more or less weight depending on what the judge sees as the veracity of the evidence. With that in mind remember that the prosecutor can voir dire a witness and otherwise challenge evidence presented by the defendant as well as present their own witnesses and evidence.

 

As far as reasonable amounts go you cannot adopt section 4 amounts as reasonable just because you want to. Section 4 fixes an arbitrary amount that a cardholder may possess. It doesn't state that the amount is reasonable it just states that it is the amount you may possess. It can be viewed as an upper limit rather than a reasonable amount. It is a fixed amount that is likely designed to keep cardholders safe so there isn't a flood of litigation. Imagine if section 4 told us we could possess a reasonable amount rather than a fixed amount. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry would be dragged into court by overzealous prosecutors arguing that WHATEVER amount we had was unreasonable. If I suffer migraine headaches twice a year, on average, and smoking one joint cures it then a reasonable amount on-hand for me would be probably 2 to 4 joints. In that respect it could be argued that 2.5oz is unreasonable. If sec.8 were designed to "goto" sec. 4 as to the reaonableness of your first 2.5 oz then why not just state in sec. 8 that you may possess 2.5oz OR a reasonable amount. And, yes, I do know that my position on this must mean I want patients jailed, right?

 

As far as saying a defendant is being required to supply the PA with evidence to convict themselves----huh? You don't understand the Michigan Rules of Evidence. The MMA tells us that we need a dr. to recommend mj. That means a dr., in theory, has reviewed our file and decided mj would help us. That is a requirement of sec. 8. If I, as the defendant, get on the stand and testify myself that mj would help me then that is NOT a dr. testifying. In order to prove the element listed in sec. 8(a)(1) I need some other evidence. If I want to convince the judge to the level of a preponderance then MY testimony, as a layperson, is useless. It's useless 1. Because I am a layperson trying to give a medical opinion and the PA would be ALL over that objecting as to my qualifications (see MRE 701) and, more importantly, 2. Because I cannot testify as to what the Dr. told me. That's called hearsay. It's inadmissible (see MRE 802). So, I need the Dr. there or I need a copy of my medical records admitted which show the Dr. recommended mj to me (med. records are an exception to the hearsay rule).

 

Now, with that said, consider this--you DON'T have to have your dr. testify and you DON'T have to give your med records or Dr's name to the PA. But, guess what, if you DON'T then there is no other way to establish the necessary element contained in sec.8(a)(1).

[+RevThad]

Thanks but what chance does he have when they are saying we had to much and we were under plants and Meds as to 12 and 2.5 oz

Various PAs will argue any point that they think can make their case. Some are overzealous and refuse to look at what the law does allow for, those will suggest that a single gram is too much. To them marijuana is not a viable medicine, and they will argue a case from that point of view; in their logic since it isn't medicine, then it is illegal, and therefore it's full speed ahead with the prosecution attempt.

 

There are many that are coming on board though, and recognizing what the law provides for, and the potential of the medicinal qualities of marijuana. The PAs and LEO that fall into this category should be commended, for opening their minds and believing in the will of the people of our state.

 

What are his chances? I would say the chances are fair to good, that he is found not guilty. Whether or not he can use the AD for all of the charges he is facing, will be an interesting thing to watch. The interaction between the charges he is facing and the MMMAct is a bit different than most cases. One very important question will be "intent to deliver to whom?", if the answer is qualified patients, then the next answer is quite obvious, or should be. Another important question that will be asked and answered will be "what was the intent?", and can the PA prove that it wasn't for medicinal purposes. If he can show that the intent was to deliver marijuana to the 120 patients he was helping on a daily basis to acquire marijuana for medicinal purposes, the rest of the charges fail to stand on solid ground.

 

Will be interesting to watch the outcome of this one, and we should all remember that regardless of what the first court ruling is, this is headed all the way up the judicial ladder...