Pot Ruling’S Effect On Local Cases Uncertain

[bobandtorey]

A recent medical marijuana ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court — it’s ninth since voters approved the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act in 2008 — could have an influence on local cases.

The ruling in the Richard Hartwick and Robert Tuttle cases clarifies when caregivers and users can use their medical marijuana certification as a defense if charged with a marijuana-related crime.

St. Clair County Prosecutor Michael Wendling said his office is reviewing the lengthy opinion.

“We have multiple cases that are stalled in the circuit court that have asserted defenses under the medical marijuana act,” Wendling said.

“We’ll review the opinion and determine whether it will make a difference in any of the pending cases.”

While his office still is reviewing the opinion, Wendling said it appears to clarify some areas of the medical marijuana act that have been a cause for confusion in the past.

“I think further clarification of this difficult law is beneficial for both prosecution and defense,” Wendling said. “Both sides of this social issue are looking for clarification.”

Lawyers for three St. Clair County residents who have battled marijuana charges since 2011 said it remains to be seen whether the ruling has any bearing on their cases.

Debra, James and Amanda Amsdill and Mark and Terra Sochacki face charges ranging from conducting a criminal enterprise to conspiracy to deliver or manufacture marijuana.

The charges against the operators and employees of local medical marijuana facilities stem from a federal investigation and December 2011 raid on Blue Water Compassion Center facilities in St. Clair, Sanilac and Tuscola counties.

Paul Tylenda, lawyer for James Amsdill, said Monday’s ruling could help at trial. Tylenda said, previously, the Court of Appeals created a “virtually unreachable” benchmark defendants had to meet to assert a medical marijuana defense.

“It’s good news for the medical marijuana community,” Tylenda said. “It will allow for the proper analysis.”

Matt Newburg, lawyer for Debra and Amanda Amsdill, said it’s too early to say if the ruling will have an effect on the Amsdill case.

“There are issues in their case that may or may not be covered in that statute,” Newburg said.

The Amsdill case — and several other medical marijuana cases — were put on hold until after the Supreme Court ruled on the Hartwick and Tuttle case.

The ruling from the Supreme Court stems from raids of Hartwick’s and Tuttle’s Oakland County homes in 2011 and 2012.

Both men said they should be immune from prosecution based on their statuses as medical marijuana users and caregivers. They submitted motions asking to assert that defense at trial.

Those motions were denied in Oakland County. The Supreme Court ruled that Oakland County must hold hearings on the immunity motion.

But the Supreme Court also ruled that the two men couldn’t present an affirmative defense against the charges, according to a report from the Detroit Free Press.

The Supreme Court opinion touched on the confusion that has been plaguing residents, the Legislature and law enforcement since the MMMA was enacted.

“While the MMMA (Michigan Medical Marihuana Act) has been the law in Michigan for just under seven years, this Court has been called on to give meaning to the MMMA in nine different cases,” the justices wrote. “The many inconsistencies in the law have caused confusion for medical marijuana caregivers and patients, law enforcement, attorneys, and judges, and have consumed valuable public and private resources to interpret and apply it.”

The Amsdills and Sochackis will appear in court Aug. 27 for a pretrial hearing.

Attorney General Bill Schuette’s office, which is handling the Amsdill and Sochacki case, did not return calls for comment.

 

http://www.thetimesherald.com/story/news/local/2015/07/28/pot-rulings-effect-local-cases-uncertain/30800291/

[trichcycler]

you think the H&T case will negatively or positively affect the Amsdills and their associates?