Our Section 8 Defense And Court Drama...

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Tpain you say a judge cannot deny testimony from the defendant. I think if you read the thread in context you see that no one said it can be denied. The response to what you said was something like "the judge won't accept the testimony." Given the context I took that to mean that the judge won't likely see just the defendant's testimony alone as sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Not that the judge would literally not allow the testimony. Seems you are jousting with a ghost.

 

As for your second question I'll give you a little advice. You don't need to be a judge or lawyer to understand legal procedure. You just need a decent and logical mind and be a voracious reader. With that said the answer to your question is no, I never worked in the law. But I don't see how the options are 1. judge, 2. lawyer, 3. guess. I didn't guess, I know. Knowing the standard of proof for various legal procedures doesn't take a law professional and it doesn't require deciphering a legal opinion. It's basic stuff.

 

I don't know what you mean by differ in the rebuttal dept. The 2 sections of the act are different and deal with different things.

[bobandtorey]

the alternative is the judge requests evidence that no patient could ever hope to provide that would convince a jury.

 

patients get caught up all the time in testimony. theres been a few cases where patients have screwed the pooch. even a perjury charge was added (i forgot which case now).

 

where in sec8 does it say a judge can deny testimony for a sec8?

where in sec8 does it say a prosecutor can bring in an expert witness?

 

 

Thanks

 

you cache on fast the name you are looking for is the Archie K case and it was his Kid that got charged for perjury because he was on the stand and said he sent in  his  forum to the State after the raid

Edited August 19, 2014 by bobandtorey

[bobandtorey]

Tpain you say a judge cannot deny testimony from the defendant. I think if you read the thread in context you see that no one said it can be denied. The response to what you said was something like "the judge won't accept the testimony." Given the context I took that to mean that the judge won't likely see just the defendant's testimony alone as sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Not that the judge would literally not allow the testimony. Seems you are jousting with a ghost.

 

As for your second question I'll give you a little advice. You don't need to be a judge or lawyer to understand legal procedure. You just need a decent and logical mind and be a voracious reader. With that said the answer to your question is no, I never worked in the law. But I don't see how the options are 1. judge, 2. lawyer, 3. guess. I didn't guess, I know. Knowing the standard of proof for various legal procedures doesn't take a law professional and it doesn't require deciphering a legal opinion. It's basic stuff.

 

I don't know what you mean by differ in the rebuttal dept. The 2 sections of the act are different and deal with different things.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you

[t-pain]

Given the context I took that to mean that the judge won't likely see just the defendant's testimony alone as sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Not that the judge would literally not allow the testimony. Seems you are jousting with a ghost.

yes but if the judge decides the evidence does not meet the burden of proof, isnt the testimony denied/dismissed?

 

I don't know what you mean by differ in the rebuttal dept. The 2 sections of the act are different and deal with different things.

i mean that the MMMA law defines exactly what police, prosecutors, judges, juries, physicians, patients, caregivers and people can and cannot do in regards to medical marijuana. if its not in the MMMA, it cannot be done.

 

so in my opinion, sec4 allows for a rebuttal, sec8 does not.

Edited August 19, 2014 by t-pain

[Restorium2]

Doesn't having an expert doctor witness for the defendant provide cause for rebuttal? It seems the logical conclusion. 

For example; You could have Dr. Bozo The Clown say you needed 20 pounds a day. Who would/could refute that? Seems there needs to be a balance between one expert and another, unless the prosecutor likes your expert doctor to begin with. I don't see that any law could tie the hands of the prosecutor like that. Just doesn't make sense.

[t-pain]

thats where people v koon comes in.

 

its a special affirmative defense, all other acts or sections of acts inconsistent with sec8 do not apply.

 

so any rule or law that says it can be rebutted... is inconsistent.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Tpain using your logic someone should be able to hold an evidentiary hearing in their living room because the act doesn't say it has to be in a courtroom. And the judge could be your grandma because the act doesn't say it has to be a real judge. So if you ever need section 8 they should plan a small get together and invite the prosecutor and hold a hearing there.  And to heck with court rules or rules of evidence because the act doesn't say they have to be used. I wish someone would have pointed this out sooner.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Section 8 calls for an evidentiary hearing. That is a legal term and all of the thanksgiving fixings that are normally used in an evidentiary hearing will apply to one used with section 8. To say that the evidentiary hearing used for a section 8 is different that any other evidentiary hearing is preposterous. Using your theory the prosecutor can not rebut the evidence nor would the defendant be required to adhere to any other court rules or rules of evidence. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[t-pain]

sec8 says a defense from prosecution, i dont think i'm going to debate further with you if you dont feel like debating seriously.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Tpain why can't you force the prosecutor to prosecute you from your living room with grandma as your judge? I am being 100% serious. I think if you can answer that question then you will have the answer to your position that evidence cannot be rebutted.

[t-pain]

forcing a prosecutor to enter your house is not in the MMMA.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Conducting an evidentiary hearing in a courtroom with a real judge presiding is not in the mma.

[Restorium2]

Realistically, you need to put on your judge's hat T and look at it again.

[Dr. Bob]

A doctor as an expert witness can provide an opinion on amounts, an expert witness from the prosecution (ie another doctor) could try to refute that.  But a patient, with a doctor's opinion confirming the reasonableness of their dosages, goes a long way to making the case.

 

Doctors can and do have a difference of opinions, but most of the time it is Dr. A likes motrin and Dr. B likes naprosyn, but both a and b agree the other's therapy is reasonable.  You would be hard pressed to find Dr. A saying 1 ounce a week is reasonable and Dr. B saying that is completely unreasonable.  On the other hand, if Dr. A says a pound a week is needed, Dr. B might disagree and the jury will decide which expert has the coolest cuff links.  In that case their own experience and common sense will help them decide if Dr. A or B is out of line and unsupported.

 

BUT given the defense brought an expert that agreed with the defendant, the prosecution must disprove.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited August 19, 2014 by Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

thats where people v koon comes in.

 

its a special affirmative defense, all other acts or sections of acts inconsistent with sec8 do not apply.

 

so any rule or law that says it can be rebutted... is inconsistent.

Wow ! i wish you where a judge things would be a lot better

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Tpain are you insane? What you are claiming is that the evidentiary hearing would not be an adversarial hearing at all. All you would need is the defendant to say he needed what he was caught with and you would need a doctor to say it was recommended. Prosecutor cannot rebut that just sit there and look pretty. Every section 8 hearing would be a slam dunk because a prosecutor couldn't present any rebuttal. I picture a scene out someone's dream where the defendant puts on his section 8 and then the judge asks the prosecutor "and madam prosecutor your rebuttal? Oh wait nevermind you aren't allowed to rebut I'm only supposed to hear the defendant's evidence and then rule on the motion." It must be a veritable savoy truffle to live in your head. Where do I get some of whatever you are on?

 

I would like you to address how a defendant can be forced to have the hearing in a courtroom and in front of a sitting judge sworn by the state though. Those requirements are not in section 8.

[jeff from bad axe]

I won a section 8 hearing.has anyone else commenting on this subject won a section 8 hearing.My doctor did not testify to my dosage.My testimony that I reduced my medicine into concentrates was accepted by the judge.it

[bobandtorey]

We also did back in 2009 

[GregS]

GregS I don't expect you to accept my statements so cool your jets. I made a statement that I know is true that's all. I fully agree and advocate that no one accept a statement at face value. Do your own research and check it out first and then maybe you can be the one to proudly give us a citation to show that I am correct. But it helps no one to claim that all one needs to do is show "some" evidence. That is misleading and would lead some to believe they could mount a successful section 8 defense by just testifying as to what they need to use.

 

Put it this way, what are the standards of proof in the law? Basically probable cause which is equal to a preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt which is equal to the civil counterpart of clear and convincing evidence. There is no standard of proof in the law known as a "scintilla of evidence" and basically what is being put forth is that all you need is a scintilla of evidence and you are golden. No. By the act's words the section 8 is first brought at a evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing, by its own nature, uses the preponderance standard of proof.

 

Add to that that tpain claiming that the prosecution can't call an expert because it is hearsay, and you have all sorts of people running around gasping and wondering how a section 8 hearing could really be that easy. I would suggest, GregS, that you challenge all points made here not just the ones you don't like. If you would drop the constant lovers' quarrel with Dr. Bob then maybe that would help focus your attention. I didn't see you challenge tpain and ask for a citation on how an expert witness called by the prosecution is hearsay. (although, to be fair, I do believe tpain said it would be "heresy." But that doesn't fit either. 

 

Since you're making such a fuss GregS maybe you could also tell me how you would plan on getting your notarized doctor document introduced into evidence at a section 8 hearing. According to what I have been reading that cannot be done. CITATIONS PLEASE?

The courts have butchered constitutional requirements. Probable cause has been insulted with the ruling in Terry v Ohio that "reasonable suspicion" is enough to initiate a search, despite that it does not require that any warrant shall issue, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Other rulings have further marginalized Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections. So please don't tell us that the law is not that intricate that your statements do not need citations. Shifting the burden of proof is a commonly seen fallacy, albeit not as common as the ad hominem fallacies you posit. It is not up to anyone else to prove your statements. We know enough to identify those and any other fallacy. You will please do well to do the same. I will look forward to and appreciate intelligent conversation if you persist in posting.

 

A forum search using the term Michigan Rules of Evidence, or MRE, will reveal what has been discussed regarding the several options that permit those documents into evidence. See particularly rules nos. 801-806 and 901-903. Won't you please, in kind, cite your authority stating otherwise. We understand that a judge has the authority to deny them arbitrarily and without any reasonable explanation. The forum archives are, in fact, replete with conversations and arguments that you will please apprise yourself of before demonstrating your ignorance again.

Edited August 20, 2014 by GregS

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Again, GregS, how do you plan to get your affidavit introduced into evidence? Citing giant sections of evidence rules doesn't answer the question. Most of what you cited has nothing to do with the question. So lay it out for me. Set the stage. You are standing in court, you are holding your affidavit, it's your turn to speak. Now what? If the prosecutor objects is your answer "go read 801-806 and 901-903?" So lay it out. You think rule  X applies because what?

 

What ad hominem argument have I made towards you? Looks like you are angry because I am calling you on your affidavit scheme. I am not saying your scheme won't work I am analyzing it and asking you to show how it will work. Critical thinking.

[GregS]

To answer your question Highlander, it is about $3500 a day, even if the hearing is rescheduled or a plea is taken.  and that is for every day the doctor has to schedule in court, testify or not.

 

That is the cost of the doctor, add to it the cost of the attorney and the cost of spending 2 years going through the court system, both emotionally and financially.  That is why those of us that actual are involved in the cases STRONGLY support section 4 to avoid them, and get upset with wannabee jailhouse lawyers that try to promote section 8 as an alternative to section 4 or insist that their 'notarized contract' somehow makes the very real costs of the hearings go away.

 

Section 8 is a powerful thing in the hands of a well prepared patient and a good lawyer, and may offer protections.  But it is by no means a valid game plan to base your participation in the MMMA.  It is a defense after you have been arrested to try and justify what you did.

 

Dr. Bob

It is a clear violation. Is there something more?

[Dr. Bob]

It is a clear violation. Is there something more?

A clear violation of what?

[GregS]

A clear violation of what?

Mistakenly posted here. I regret the error.

[GregS]

Tpain you say a judge cannot deny testimony from the defendant. I think if you read the thread in context you see that no one said it can be denied. The response to what you said was something like "the judge won't accept the testimony." Given the context I took that to mean that the judge won't likely see just the defendant's testimony alone as sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Not that the judge would literally not allow the testimony. Seems you are jousting with a ghost.

 

As for your second question I'll give you a little advice. You don't need to be a judge or lawyer to understand legal procedure. You just need a decent and logical mind and be a voracious reader. With that said the answer to your question is no, I never worked in the law. But I don't see how the options are 1. judge, 2. lawyer, 3. guess. I didn't guess, I know. Knowing the standard of proof for various legal procedures doesn't take a law professional and it doesn't require deciphering a legal opinion. It's basic stuff.

 

I don't know what you mean by differ in the rebuttal dept. The 2 sections of the act are different and deal with different things.

t-pain obviously wants to know, and so now do I, if there are rules regarding the rebuttal of the three required elements of the AD that you have perhaps found in your voracious reading, and what rules, if any at all you have found in your, ahem, voracious reading indicate they are in any way different from those rules permitted and required to rebut testimony under sec. 4.

 

This is verry simple Frank. All you need do is pay attention. I understand that doesn't work for everyone. Hmmm?

Edited August 21, 2014 by GregS

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

A section 8 hearing is an evidentiary hearing, right? So a prosecutor can rebut in the same way they could in any evidentiary hearing such as a hearing to exclude evidence. You are apparently very learned in the law GregS so why is that so hard to understand? A rebuttal can be made in any form that conforms to court procedure and rules of evidence. Otherwise there is no limit on rebuttal. Tpain submits that a section 8 hearing doesn't allow for rebuttal which is obviously not correct. For someone who cites rules of evidence to support their positions maybe you should be the one to tell us the limits.

 

In section 4 obviously the police can use probable cause to arrest you if your actions are outside of section 4. Then maybe you bring a pretrial motion to dismiss based on your compliance with section 4. That would also be an evidentiary hearing. Same thing because you need to present evidence that you were in compliance. If the court finds probable cause to believe you weren't in compliance then you go to trial and try to convince the jury that you were. I don't know why this needs to be spelled out for you.

 

I would still like to know the reasoning behind your thinking that your affidavit can be admitted to evidence and thereby not require a doctor's testimony. Don't just throw a whole list of rules of evidence at me. Tell me which one applies and how you plan to use it to get the affidavit admitted to evidence. Giving a list of court rules, many of which clearly don't apply to the situation, isn't helpful in understanding your reasoning. So do you have reasoning on this or were you just assuming it will work?