Chesterfield To Appeal Medical Marijuana Court Ruling

[MiMedical]

Chesterfield Township officials have decided to appeal a recent district court ruling involving the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act and a possession charge that originated in the township.

 

By a 6-1 vote on May 5, Board members authorized the township attorney to appeal Judge William Hackel’s recent court ruling, a decision that will likely result in a jury trial to determine whether the defendant was in violation of the Medical Marijuana Act when he was found in possession of marijuana with an expired medical card.

 

Township Attorney Robert Seibert said the defendant, Michael Inagro, argued in court that he was immune from prosecution under section 8 of the state’s Medical Marijuana Act.

 

“In its most general sense, what (section 8) says is if you don’t have a card, but you are treating with a physician and there is a bona fide physician-patient relationship – the patient is receiving therapeutic benefit from the use of the marijuana to alleviate a serious and debilitating medical condition and a professional has done a full, complete assessment of the patient’s medical history – you’re allowed to possess the marijuana,” Seibert told the board. “In this particular case, the judge ruled that simply seeing the physician and getting a script for medical marijuana is, in and of itself, sufficient immunity from prosecution.”

 

If the case proceeds to a jury trial, the jury will have to determine whether the defendant was allowed to be in possession of marijuana through the bona fide patient-physician relationship defense.

 

Seibert said that in district court, “the judge said, ‘I’m not going to make that call, I’m going to let the jury decide when the jury hears the doctor testify and the patient testify, they can decide whether it’s an ongoing relationship or not.’”

 

“To get that far, we’re going to be sitting in a court room for two days arguing that to a jury and I’m simply saying from a dollars and cents standpoint it makes more sense to me to go to circuit court and try to get the judge to reverse it,” Seibert added.

 

Prior to the vote, the township attorney said that if Chesterfield did not appeal the ruling, it could negatively impact hundreds of the township’s marijuana cases.

 

“If we don’t appeal it, the result is going to be that we’re going to be taking a lot of these cases to jury trial, which is going to cost you substantially more,” he said.

 

The lone dissenting vote against the appeal came from Chesterfield Township Trustee David Joseph. He said he’s concerned about cases in which a patient receives a prescription for medical marijuana from an “online doctor” or while not having a longstanding patient-physician relationship.

 

“They can secure a doctor online and call that treating,” Joseph said. “The difficulty I have is that there are a number of pro-marijuana advocacy groups that can’t wait to lock onto some test case to make their argument on a more statewide or even a larger platform … What concerns me is what happens when there is a real effort made to make Chesterfield’s case a landmark decision and we’re in there battling on possession of marijuana charges. This is a loser, I think, for the township.”

 

Seibert responded: “The problem you’re going to have is you’re going to be seeing on your bills, on your police department prosecutions, all these jury trials, or at least a significantly larger number of jury trials on these medical marijuana cases because the judge has already ruled now and all our cases are tried before this one judge.

 

“He has already said, ‘In my court, when this argument is raised, I’m not going to make that call; it’s going to a jury.’ So now all of these medical marijuana cases are going to get tried. I don’t have any problem trying them – we have the staff to do that – I’m trying to save you some money.”

 

The township attorney said the appeal would likely involve about 10 to 15 hours of legal work. Jury trials usually take a day or two.

 

The application of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act is evolving in the courts almost monthly, Seibert noted. Township Trustee Hank Anderson said he sees the appeal as a way of clarifying the law.

 

“I look at moving forward as a way of clarifying it and getting an answer one way or the other instead of just letting it ride,” Anderson said.

 

Seibert expects a decision to be issued within the next couple of months.

 

http://www.voicenews.com/articles/2014/05/08/news/doc536ba4d2adee8503321088.txt?viewmode=fullstory

[GregS]

This is something we've been waiting for a long time.

[GregS]

The courts will obviously have to rule on the authority of any documents in a physician file that indicate authorization to use cannabis. As long as they abide by the law, any ruling can do little else than to further legitimize sec. 8 as a more reliable option. I don't really think they can screw around much with the bona fide relationship because that has been closely addressed in the legislature already, not that there is any assurance they will not trot out their already proven dumbassness. I see it as potentially one of the most powerful and pertinent cases to date.

Edited May 10, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

"...there are a number of pro-marijuana advocacy groups that can’t wait to lock onto some test case to make their argument on a more statewide or even a larger platform …," said Joseph. 

 

That's us. He could not be more correct, and knows he is on the schit end of the stick. Siebert understands, if only from a dollars and cents perspective. We are getting in his pockets and squeezing his boys. I would think he can, in the future, avoid the jury trials he is concerned with simply by going along with the defense to dismiss on a sec.8 motion instead, saving cost for both we and the township in both time and money. Jury trials are dammed expensive for defendants too. The District Court Judge has done us a favor by refusing to play along and causing the twp. to pass it off to a court with more authority. I've said that it might come to the point where sec. 8 would become a comparatively boilerplate defense, as defenses go, albeit only inasmuch as the facts present themselves. I'm still optimistic.

 

The momentum is ours. The prophylactic documents I have suggested would nail the bona fide relationship down, and I recommend that every certifying doctor in the state keep pertinent copies on file as a foil to a subpoena, and that every patient and caregiver do the same to protect their interests.

Edited May 12, 2014 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

Thank you

 

i've always knew a defense to dismiss on a sec.8 is all anyone has if they end up in Court Sec 4 is when you'll on the side of the road IMHO

[GregS]

Does this mean that Siebert or another attorney provided by the twp. will be Counsel for the pt and/or cg?

 

That is just sweet.

Edited May 11, 2014 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

Does this mean that Siebert or another attorney provided by the twp. will be Counsel for the pt and/or cg?

 

That is just sweet.

No thats not how i see it happening the pt/cg will have to have his /her own Lawyer 

[coreyz]

Jury nullification.

[mibrains]

i see an argument being able to be made in front of a jury of our peers finally.

 

sorry mister prosecutor if that means ALL CANNABIS PATIENTS will have the right to ARGUE IN FRONT OF A JURY...

 

man..

 

did he really go on record and say it would be cheaper to stop our constitutionally protected rights than it would be to let people have a fair trial?

 

10-15 hours compared to 2 days.... well SORRY YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR JOB NOW ! !

 

do your job donkey hat and argue the cases in front of a jury of our peers that is the way our legal system works....

 

unreal the Gall these prosecutors have been allowed to display in todays atmosphere of ignorance to our own constitution....

[mibrains]

The prophylactic documents I have suggested would nail the bona fide relationship down, and I recommend that every certifying doctor in the state keep pertinent copies on file as a foil to a subpoena, and that every patient and caregiver do the same to protect their interests.

 

maybe greg.. but your overstating your position.

 

remember that signing a document does not equal an action.

 

it is not as simple as fill out this form and your covered...

 

ever.

 

just like there is no miracle pill to take to feel better..

 

your idea and form could and  might help a defendant prove their position with the doctor however the actions of the Doctor are going to be the ultimate deciding factor and how you interacted with them..

[GregS]

i see an argument being able to be made in front of a jury of our peers finally.

 

sorry mister prosecutor if that means ALL CANNABIS PATIENTS will have the right to ARGUE IN FRONT OF A JURY...

 

man..

 

did he really go on record and say it would be cheaper to stop our constitutionally protected rights than it would be to let people have a fair trial?

 

10-15 hours compared to 2 days.... well SORRY YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR JOB NOW ! !

 

do your job donkey hat and argue the cases in front of a jury of our peers that is the way our legal system works....

 

unreal the Gall these prosecutors have been allowed to display in todays atmosphere of ignorance to our own constitution....

I took him to say that jury trials are unnecessary where the elements of a sec. 8 defense are apparent. That Seiebert has gone into the details of those elements demonstrate that he gets it. Keep in mind that a dismissal at a pretrial hearing will save defendants loads in time, money, and grief. Why would anyone want to do prevent that aside from a gratuitous desire to "make them do their job?" Our objective is to get defendants off the hook as quickly as possible with minimal cost. Jury options remain if a case is not dismissed in a pretrial sec. 8 hearing where any of the elements meet the SC directive that they be presented to a jury if any of those elements are in question.

Edited May 12, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

We have a government attorney carrying our water.

 

That's pretty huge.

[GregS]

The prophylactic documents I have suggested would nail the bona fide relationship down, and I recommend that every certifying doctor in the state keep pertinent copies on file as a foil to a subpoena, and that every patient and caregiver do the same to protect their interests.

 

maybe greg.. but your overstating your position.

 

remember that signing a document does not equal an action.

 

it is not as simple as fill out this form and your covered...

 

ever.

 

just like there is no miracle pill to take to feel better..

 

your idea and form could and  might help a defendant prove their position with the doctor however the actions of the Doctor are going to be the ultimate deciding factor and how you interacted with them..

Documents are the test of truth in court. They are sworn testimony to actions. Verbal testimony is memorialized in print. What I suggest are some that have authority under law as submissible evidence. We have looked at the rules of evidence and find there is a lot of room to have them included. Granted, every judge has his or her discretion whether they are admissible, but those rules are several. For instance the sworn notarized form that is attested to by both the patient and physician stating intent to abide by a bona fide relationship can and should have the effect of keeping physicians out of court and have standing as allowable hearsay, no subpoenas required. That is and always has been its intent. The authority of these or any other documents is an issue that is part of this appeal.

Edited May 12, 2014 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

I can say that back in 2009 as one of the first to be in Court that all the Lawyers didn't want to have Doctors coming into court so even back then they knew it wouldn't be a good thing to start up

because as we know no Doctor wants to come to court in the first place and if on;y one forum would keep them from doing so  it would be worth a lot if only for pice of mind 

[bustedinclintontwsp]

I think it is hilarious that they think that they will loose hundreds of cases if they fallow the act.... Sect 8 is blowing up... I thought they had to drop the charges at the earliest possible time. I've herd of this before a lot of times, District Court Judges do not want to rule on this. Unless they are over privliged 52 district types. One distric court told my friend that if it was up to him he would dismiss the case but couldn't at District level and bound him over... lol.

[GregS]

I think it is hilarious that they think that they will loose hundreds of cases if they fallow the act.... Sect 8 is blowing up... I thought they had to drop the charges at the earliest possible time. I've herd of this before a lot of times, District Court Judges do not want to rule on this. Unless they are over privliged 52 district types. One distric court told my friend that if it was up to him he would dismiss the case but couldn't at District level and bound him over... lol.

Prosecutors are guaranteed to take District Court dismissals to Circuit Court. There are some good arguments to waive a District Court trial and go straight to Circuit Court to save time, trouble, and expense.

 

Sec. 8 is the demise of prosecution dreams. When, not if, it becomes garden variety cause for dismissal we will have won a huge victory.

[GregS]

I can say that back in 2009 as one of the first to be in Court that all the Lawyers didn't want to have Doctors coming into court so even back then they knew it wouldn't be a good thing to start up

because as we know no Doctor wants to come to court in the first place and if on;y one forum would keep them from doing so  it would be worth a lot if only for pice of mind 

You could not be more right Bob. Putting anyone, to include a doctor, on a witness stand is a crapshoot. What we want to prevent is the opportunity for prosecutors to use their bag of tricks. These concise documents can do that.

Edited May 13, 2014 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Surprisingly I side with Greg on this one.  It is a decent question to have answered, not just for further clarification of the bona fide relationship, but the issue of an expired card.  Clearly we don't want people relying on expired cards, but to date I believe the only question that has been really addressed is that of a patient that was arrested and then went out to get their first card.  

 

Another interesting variant is with minors.  My nephew qualifies for a card, but I would not sign for him because his primary and specialists would not, and it is a requirement of my practice that they have to be the first signing doctors, I sign second for free.  I did give him a statement clearly spelling out that I felt he qualified and would benefit from it and placed it in his medical record.  He was later charged after being seizure free for a year, but when the attorney and I pushed the issue and asked it to be decided, they dropped the case of possession rather than resolve the issue.

 

I only hope that in this case, the guy has a stellar certification doc with some nads and a good attorney.  I'd hate to find the poster child for the case went to a mill that couldn't support him.

 

Dr. Bob

[snarkler]

I don't know anything about this case other than what is written in this thread, but it appears to me that the township is the prosecutor, and is arguing that the Judge should have ruled as a matter of law that defendant did not have protection under sec. 8.  If he loses on appeal, the trustees can then decide if they want to pay for a jury trial in each case.

Edited May 13, 2014 by snarkler

[bobandtorey]

I don't know anything about this case other than what is written in this thread, but it appears to me that the township is the prosecutor, and is arguing that the Judge should have ruled as a matter of law that defendant did not have protection under sec. 8.  If he loses on appeal, the trustees can then decide if they want to pay for a jury trial in each case.

I think you said it well