Jump to content

Prosecutor Seeks To Block Pot Law In Case


BirdHunter
 Share

Recommended Posts

Link to Story

 

Prosecutor seeks to block pot law in case

 

A Livingston County judge will consider the prosecutor's request to stop four people from using the medical marijuana law as a defense in their criminal case.

 

According to court documents, the prosecutor's office wants Judge Michael Hatty to preclude the four defendants charged in connection to raids on the now-defunct Marshall Alternatives medical marijuana dispensary from using the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act as a defense.

 

The prosecutor's office also want to preclude "all references" to medical marijuana during the trial.

 

Hatty will consider the motion March 12.

 

Marshall Alternatives owners Christi Marshall, 39, and Alan Dale Marshall, 39, along with employee Stephanie Lynn Baxter, 30, of Howell, were charged with delivering marijuana for allegedly selling the drug to an undercover narcotics officer who posed as a card-carrying medical marijuana patient in February and May of last year.

 

April Sundie Smith, 44, of Pinckney, also is charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver in connection to the Marshall Alternatives raids.

 

The prosecutor's office argued that to use the immunity section of the state law, the defendants must prove they are "primary caregivers" who have been authorized under the state's registry to provide marijuana for medicinal purposes to the person receiving the marijuana, according to court documents.

 

The undercover officer's medical marijuana card did not provide a caregiver designation.

 

The prosecutor argued that the law does not permit patient-to-patient sales of marijuana.

 

The defendants' attorneys had not filed a response as of Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesen't even make sense. How can you preclude all references to medical marijuana in a trial about medical marijuana?

 

Submit no evidence, give no testimony? Neither side would have anything to say. Can't admit the police report. Police can't even say what happened.

 

This just defies logic.

 

oh it's true alright just go to 1 court case and you will believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well how on earth does a police officer get cross examined without committing perjury based on his own report?

 

Tell us what happened.

 

Was this the defendant's home residence?

 

What was the business?

 

Did you have any state issued ID?

 

Tell us what you told the defendant.

 

Did the defendant ask for any identification? What did you show him?

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...