Is Selling Medical Marijuana To More Than Five Patients Legal Now?

[+Malamute]

I will say what I normally say,... it is up to judicial interpretation.  With the insanely conservative republican skew of the Michigan Judiciary,.. I would tend toward telling people to use a very conservative interpretation when deciding the way you will actually operate under the law; but push for more liberal interpretations while trying to elect a more reasonable judiciary.

[GregS]

I'm not sure that protection from arrest is also offered(8) with an unregistered person selling marijuana to a registered (or not) patient.

No it is not. That is part of the risk if you are found out by the police. Costs of prosecution are to be also considered, with or without dismissal. Then there is the prospect that a skewed judicial process can lead to conviction.

 

Feel lucky?

Edited April 11, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.

 

Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").

 

Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.

If a police officer were to sign on to these documents as a patient, have them notarized and then engage with a potential caregiver, it is almost certainly fraud and entrapment to then arrest said caregiver. The court process is not, however, always that precise, and personal agendas from the bench are pretty common. If things go wrong and entrapment is not charged by the court, resulting in your conviction, appeals are available. Better to check your bank and credit card balance, along with any equity you might have, first. Even if dismissed, a prosecutor can appeal to a higher court. The Court of Appeals has been very clear in its attitudes toward this, and it is pretty much assured they would hand you your azz, leaving you to appeal to the State Supreme Court. This could become very complicated, but incredibly interesting.

Edited April 11, 2014 by GregS

[trichcycler]

I hope natesilver sees your post, could save some misunderstandings in the future. thank you

No it is not. That is part of the risk if you are found out by the police. Costs of prosecution are to be also considered, with or without dismissal. Then there is the prospect that a skewed judicial process can lead to conviction.

 

Feel lucky?

[Wild Bill]

Patient/Caregiver Agreement to Engage in the Medical Use of Marijuana

 

I,______________________________________, swear and affirm that I . . . .

 

If the court lets them use counterfeit cards and ID then doesn't it follow that they would let them falsify a notarized document?

[Restorium2]

If the court lets them use counterfeit cards and ID then doesn't it follow that they would let them falsify a notarized document?

Yes. Same same.

[GregS]

Yes. Same same.

The The Michigan Rules of Courtroom Evidence consider notarized documents as self authenticating, and to dismiss them from evidence would be improper. Judges do improper schit all day.

[Restorium2]

The The Michigan Rules of Courtroom Evidence consider notarized documents as self authenticating, and to dismiss them from evidence would be improper. Judges do improper schit all day.

They wouldn't neccesarily dismiss the document. It could/would be entered into evidence just like the fake cards. Same, same. The Supreme Court OK'ed the fake cards and they would treat these documents the same, in my opinion.

[GregS]

They wouldn't neccesarily dismiss the document. It could/would be entered into evidence just like the fake cards. Same, same. The Supreme Court OK'ed the fake cards and they would treat these documents the same, in my opinion.

That is not the point. The documents would be allowable hearsay according to the rules, but the rules are subject to judicial bias and the facts particular to the case.

Edited April 11, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

If the court lets them use counterfeit cards and ID then doesn't it follow that they would let them falsify a notarized document?

I don't believe it. I think it would clearly be criminally fraudulent.

Edited April 15, 2014 by GregS