Jump to content

Jury Convicts 70-Year-Old Lake Orion Woman In Marijuana Case


Recommended Posts

Guest OxXGarfieldXxO

Sunshine6,

It's good to see you around. Thank you for "lurking" around and keeping us up to date accurately. I got to meet you at the October 2010 rally in Oakland and you've been in my thoughts ever since.

 

Best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Prior to the trial the defense attorney had moved to dismiss pursuant to section 4/8. The Court denied the motion and made a finding that the house was unlocked.

 

 

WTF?? THE JUDGE MADE A FINDING OF A DISPUTED FACT WHEN THERE WAS A JURY SEATED?? I HOPE THE DEFENSE OBJECTED TO THAT FOR THE RECORD!

 

then later granted the Prosecutors motion in limene to not allow the mentioning of the mmma. This was a jury trial.

 

After this case, and probably the basis of the appeal, People v. Anderson came down from the court of appeals. This case directs the court how to analyze the prima fascia showing of what must be established by a patient to present the medical marihuana defense to a jury.

 

 

SO DEFENSE IS PLANNING AN APPEAL?

 

 

This of course is all none-sense because if you look at the referendum language, the last paragraph of the initiative on the ballot, clearly says, "registered and unregistered patients and caregivers shall have a defense to any marijuana prosecution.

 

Barb Agro was a registered patient. She read the referendum, voted for it, and believed that she would never be prosecuted, but if she was that she would have a medical marihuana defense. Now she is a felon on probation, doing community service for something the state and her doctor approved.. This picture is still askew.

 

AND SHE WAS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS CASE. I AM A LAWYER ALTHOUGH NOT LICENSED IN MICHIGAN.

 

IN A TRIAL, THERE IS LAW AND THERE IS FACT.

 

THE JUDGE IS THE TRIER OF LAW AND THE JURY IS THE TRIER OF FACT.

 

MMJ MUST BE KEPT IN A LOCKED FACILITY. THAT IS LAW. IF THERE IS A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE WAS LOCKABLE BUT NOT LOCKED WHEN THE POLICE GOT THERE, THAT IS A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION OF LAWS, AND THAT IS THE SOLE DOMAIN OF THE JUDGE.

 

NOW, IF THERE IS A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE HOUSE WAS LOCKED OR UNLOCKED, THAT IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND HAS TO GO TO THE JURY, ALONG WITH THE ISSUE OF THE MMJ LAW ITSELF.

 

SO THE REASON THAT THE JURY NEVER GOT THE MMJ LAW WAS BECAUSE EITHER THE DEFENSE STIPULATED (AGREED) THAT THE HOUSE WAS UNLOCKED OR THAT THEY HAD CONFESSED TO THE POLICE THAT THE HOUSE WAS UNLOCKED AND THAT CONFESSION WAS VIDEOTAPED SO THAT THE JUDGE COULD SAY THAT NO REASONABLE PERSON COULD FIND THAT THE HOUSE WAS LOCKED.

 

SO THE ONLY FACT FOR THE JURY WAS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER IT WAS MJ OR NOT AND WHETHER IT WAS IN THEIR CONTROL.

 

OF COURSE THIS MAY HAVE BEEN A PLEA BARGAIN. IF THIS WENT A JURY HOWEVER IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE FACT OF THE LOCKED DOOR AND THE MMJ DEFENSE WAS NEVER GIVEN TO THEM BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE HOUSE WAS LOCKED.

 

NOW MANY CONFESSIONS ARE MADE AT ARREST AND THEN DENIED AT TRIAL. WHY WAS THIS NOT DONE HERE? WHY DID THE DEFENSE ATTY NOT JUST DENY THE CONFESSION OR ARGUE IT WAS COERCED AND THEN ASK THAT THE JURY BE ALLOWED TO DECIDE ON WHETHER THE HOUSE WAS UNLOCKED. THAT WOULD AT LEAST GIVE THE JURY A CHANCE TO NULLIFY.

 

WELL, THE CONFESSION WAS PROBABLY WELL ESTABLISHED, AND THE DA WAS PROBABLY THREATENING TO ASK FOR A MULTIYEAR SENTENCE.

 

WHAT THE DEFENSE LAWYER SHOULD HAVE DONE IS TRY TO GET ANOTHER JUDGE TO INTERPRET THE LAW TO SAY THAT THE FACILITY MUST BE LOCKABLE BUT NOT ALWAYS LOCKED. AFTER ALL, EVERY FACILITY MUST BE UNLOCKED FOR SOME PORTION OF TIME. IT IS A COMMON THREAD IN LAW THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL BUT NOT STRICT LIABILITY. IN ORDER WORDS, IF YOU COMPLY WITH THE LAW SUBSTANTIALLY BUT HAVE AN UNAVOIDABLE LAPSE THAT IS OK.

 

I THINK THE DEFENSE ATTY SHOULD HAVE TRIED FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL--THAT IS, ONCE THE TRIAL JUDGE RULED AGAINST YOU ON THE LOCKED ISSUE, APPEAL RIGHT AWAY TO THE HIGHER COURT.

 

MAYBE THERE WAS NO APPEAL AND WILL BE NO APPEAL BECAUSE OF LACK OF MONEY.

 

DID THIS CASE ACTUALLY GO TO THE JURY OR WAS THERE A PLEA BARGAIN?

 

ALSO, NONE OF MY POSTS HERE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.

 

Thank you for stopping in.

 

Our mmj law does not require that the medicine itself be locked. In fact the law does not require that the plants be locked up.

 

This law requires that the plants be kept in an area that is equiped with locks.

 

The complete law is here:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28iqauix45mcmu30550hcsmja1%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2008

 

Here is the place that talks about growing locations:

© "Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

That's in section 3 which is the definitions section of the law.

 

The title "enclosed, locked facility" seems to require that the area is locked. However, since it is defined within the law itself, we are not supposed to rely on our understanding of what that phrase means. Instead we are supposed to rely on the exact definition that has been supplied within the law itself.

 

In the definition, it says only that the area be equipped with locks. There is no requirement that the locks be engaged or locked.

 

I was there for the majority of the case. I watched as the PA redacted a document until it became a signed confession. That was the single most repulsive action I saw there. The second most repulsive was when the judge threatened to put the jury members in jail if they considered anything they were not presented with in the courtroom. She later intimidated the jury members one at a time to underscore the threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Guy

The title "enclosed, locked facility" seems to require that the area is locked. However, since it is defined within the law itself, we are not supposed to rely on our understanding of what that phrase means. Instead we are supposed to rely on the exact definition that has been supplied within the law itself.

 

If that were only true in real life... The above statement is obviously looking for/at a loophole.

 

You can count on a judge looking at the wording and determining that the locks were mentioned in the law to provide security of the medicine. Why else would you have locks? You will have to add a least a little common sense along with the wording. We can only hope judges have some common sense, both in strictness and leniency. Like when they sentenced to only community service, the judge used some common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title "enclosed, locked facility" seems to require that the area is locked. However, since it is defined within the law itself, we are not supposed to rely on our understanding of what that phrase means. Instead we are supposed to rely on the exact definition that has been supplied within the law itself.

 

If that were only true in real life... The above statement is obviously looking for/at a loophole.

 

You can count on a judge looking at the wording and determining that the locks were mentioned in the law to provide security of the medicine. Why else would you have locks? You will have to add a least a little common sense along with the wording. We can only hope judges have some common sense, both in strictness and leniency. Like when they sentenced to only community service, the judge used some common sense.

 

Basic law 101 .. Use common understanding of a word or phrase unless the word or phrase is defined within the law itself.

 

If the word of phrase is defined within the law itself, all other sources of understanding take a back seat to what the law itself states.

 

This is a very simple and basic concept in law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Affirmative Defense is allowed in our law for "any" prosecution regarding marihuana. Meaning the judge can't disallow a defendant the opportunity to present medical purpose defense. The reason the judge didn't let her use the Affirmative Defense is because she probably tried to get the case dismissed by the judge in an evidentiary hearing. When the judge did not feel she satisfied the elements of the AD He or She denied the defendant's affirmative defense and the defendant is no longer able to use that defense at trial. What the defendant should've have done and everyone else in this same predicament is go straight to jury trial and not present the affirmative defense in the evidentiary hearing but present the Affirmative Defense to a jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Affirmative Defense is allowed in our law for "any" prosecution regarding marihuana. Meaning the judge can't disallow a defendant the opportunity to present medical purpose defense. The reason the judge didn't let her use the Affirmative Defense is because she probably tried to get the case dismissed by the judge in an evidentiary hearing. When the judge did not feel she satisfied the elements of the AD He or She denied the defendant's affirmative defense and the defendant is no longer able to use that defense at trial. What the defendant should've have done and everyone else in this same predicament is go straight to jury trial and not present the affirmative defense in the evidentiary hearing but present the Affirmative Defense to a jury.

 

Please note that the "Enclosed locked facility" is about those with an ID card.

© "Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

See that word "registered?"

 

Section 8, the Affirmative Defense, does not require anything about locks. This is currently being ignored by courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No .. the affirmative defense is the bottom line the voters commanded.

 

It prevents convictions where section 4 didn't prevent an arrest.

 

The limits of 12 plants and 2.5 oz are the limits that prevents the case from even making it into court.

 

At least that is the way it is supposed to work.

 

When the courts and lawyers ignore the law, it doesn't matter what the law says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunshine6, I'm glad I read these last 2 pages to see you posted a message. :bighug: The one thing I wish someone could've been able to prove is, normally your house would've been locked. Your husband had a set of keys- this is the proof. It seems to me you were set up. They would've raided you anyway, but anyone with any amount of common sense knows that most people lock their doors and especially if they're growing mm they lock their doors. This was a technicality they created. I'm just glad they didn't put you in jail. The felony charges are bogus but it will take a LOT of money to have that charge removed. Oakland County is a racket. :( I'm so sorry for what they did to you and your family.

 

On a side note, I with the person writing in all caps would not do that, please? It's interesting to have another lawyer's opinion though. Although I'm no lawyer I still believe with all my heart what I said about the unlocked door. I'd love to set them up and have that situation happen to them, and see how many times they'd run out frantic, without locking the door- it prob'ly happens more than anyone knows. We'll never know, but being it was in OC, they'd find some excuse to nitpick about even if it was locked. Geesh, no common sense those people have, should never be in those positions. What they did is inexcusable. Justice comes too slowly, it can never undo the damage and loss of life they caused. :(

 

Sincerely, Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and then there is another question--by what right did the cops enter her house at all unless someone gave them persmission? Did they have a warrant? Did she not tell them that she was growing mmj and had a license? That is not a crime, and they had two licenses and they were under the plant limit. There was no evidence to suggest that a crime had been commited. Did they enter without a warrant under exigent circumstances? Again, the cops have to have reason to believe that a crime is being committed and that evidence could be destroyed. But she already told them her plants were mmj and that she had a license.

 

This whole case stinks.

 

I sure hope she wants to appeal it.

 

Again, I am not a michigan lawyer, and this is not legal advice, just idle speculation.

 

They had a warrant.

 

They caused a panic by telling this father that his son was being raided. The father left the house in a panic. Forgot his wallet and forgot to lock the door.

 

The wife did none of that. The actions of her husband is what she was denied the MMMA for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The michigan law may well require that all affirmative defenses be raised pre-trial.

 

Not within the mmj law itself. It is possible it may be required somewhere else.

 

In this case, Barb had written a statement of belief of rights. Signed it and handed it to the police.

 

The PA redacted every part except those words that caused the document to be a signed confession.

 

The judge accepted the redacted document and allowed it to be handed to the jury as a signed confession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...