SB 5073 Won't Matter

Looks like it won't matter what states do to legalize medical cannabis. Its time for a governor or stste attorney general to take the 10th Amendment seriously

C/P
Obama Administration Warns It May Prosecute State Employees if Gregoire Signs Medical Pot Bill
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:53 PM

The top federal prosecutors in Washington sent a stern warning to Washington State that a medical-marijuana law passed by the legislature this week, which would license dispensaries and growers, could result in a wave of criminal charges against cannabis providers and even state employees. At the same time, in a mixed message, they telegraphed that the Obama Administration's policy of tacitly permitting states with medical marijuana laws would proceed.

"The Washington legislative proposals will create a licensing scheme that permits large-scale marijuana cultivation and distributions," wrote US Attorneys Jenny Durkan and Michael Ormsby, respectively representing the Western and Eastern districts of Washington State, in a letter sent today to Governor Chris Gregoire. "This would authorize conduct contrary to federal law and thus, would undermine the federal government's efforts to regulate the possession, manufacturing, and trafficking of controlled substances. Accordingly, the Department could consider civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries as they will be doing so in violation of federal law. ... In addition, state employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability..." including "criminal prosecution."

The letter was sent in response to an inquiry from Governor Gregoire to Attorney General Eric Holder (The federal prosecutors' letter is here and Gregoire's letter is here).

But this may not be as unequivocal as it first reads. AG Holder issued a memo in 2009 that indicates, in essence, the feds won't intervene with medical-marijuana cases that are in compliance with state laws. Holder said, of course, that the feds reserved the right to prosecute those cases.

In that vein, US Attorney Durkan also issued a statement today that "in every area we prosecute, our office works to focus our limited resources on impactful cases that implicate an important national or community interest. In the area of marijuana drug prosecutions, this means our targets include organized criminal groups, those who abuse public or tribal lands, people who commercialize the marijuana trade for profit or use it to finance other criminal activity, and doctors who abuse their positions and fraudulently certify individuals as medical marijuana patients. We have not prosecuted truly ill people or their doctors for using marijuana to lessen suffering, as permitted under state law."

So what to make of this? It's breaking right now (and I'm not a lawyer), but here's my take:

Gregoire may have requested this letter as political cover so she can veto the bill (citing the federal conflict, the risk to state employees, etc). Of course, our medical marijuana law already conflicts with federal law, her employees have already been collecting taxes on medical marijuana against federal law, and her employees provided input on this bill. So they are already complicit. This is the best chance Washington has ever had to improve its medical marijuana law. Gregoire should sign it into lawâ??standing by her legislatureâ??and make Obama figure out what the hell he wants to do. Does he want to throw down with the states trying to do the right thing (uh, the states that have medical marijuana laws are also the ones that elected him)?

Right now, the Obama Administration is needlessly being an asshole. Seriously sick people and their families need to know that they have safe access to medical marijuana, and families need to know they don't have to go to alleys to get pot. Dispensaries and growers, obviously, are the way patients get the medicine they need. The feds need to stop playing nice nice with legalese and make it clear where the rules stand.

Share via

WTF.... I am ready to open up a store soon.... Just becuase they want to make the money we will providing medical marijuana to patients.....freakin control freaks:wtf:

They warn Washington State ... they turn a blind eye to Colorado and other states?

go to colorado bros shit they have State legal warehouses with 500 plants (as of july) for infusion(butter oils etc.) thats per dispensary you are tied to (contracted to grow for)

If your part of 5 stores you can grow 2500...At the present time there is no cap as to how many plants infusion growers can grow ...its cool as shit to walk into a warehouse and see 2000 plants in different stages of growth

Quote:

---

WTF.... I am ready to open up a store soon.... Just becuase they want to make the money we will providing medical marijuana to patients.....freakin control freaks

---

Well, take your chances, the bill is dead... It's open season on marijuana sales both Federally and at the State level, everyone and his brother opened a dispensary
now they are on the 'list' if they feel they're worth their time at all..
The MMJ law is now exactly as it was prior to SB 5073 once it's officially declared dead..

Yep this sets us back a little. You can see whats going to happen even if we pass the intiative. The feds will come in and enforce there unconstitutional prohibition on us patients. Obama doesn't have the guts to stand up, and Gregoire doesn't have the guts to stand up.
We're back into the jury nullification era again, not that we ever left it. We're going to need to get as many of us as possible on these juries to send a message both to the states and the feds that we're trough baby sitting them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

Yep this sets us back a little. You can see whats going to happen even if we pass the intiative. The feds will come in and enforce there unconstitutional prohibition on us patients. Obama doesn't have the guts to stand up, and Gregoire doesn't have the guts to stand up.
We're back into the jury nullification era again, not that we ever left it. We're going to need to get as many of us as possible on these juries to send a message both to the states and the feds that we're trough baby sitting them.

---

Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the letter of the law (an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment). A jury exercising its power of nullification need not disagree with the judge's instructions themselvesâ??which concern what the law isâ??but may rule contrary to the instruction in light of the actual evidence admitted in the case.
A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.
The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict.[citation needed] It was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. However, in most modern Western legal systems, juries are often instructed to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, and the weight accorded to the evidence,[1] but not the application of that evidence to the law. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification.
Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve the refusal of American revolutionaries to convict a defendant under English law.[2] Juries have also refused to convict due to the perceived injustice of a law in general,[3] or the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases.[4] There have also been cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case.[5]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Common law precedent
3 Specific Jurisdictions
3.1 Canada
3.2 England
3.3 United States
3.3.1 Fugitive Slave Law
3.3.2 21st century
3.3.3 Judicial opinion in the U.S.
4 Controversy
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
[edit]Background



A nineteenth-century jury
Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries. Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systemsâ??a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition (in some countries) on retrying defendants after an acquittal (see related topics res judicata and double jeopardy).
Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny.[6][7] Others view it as a violation of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law.[7] Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn to by jurors. In America, others view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful in itself, while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to require nullification of unjust law: "will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help [me] God." United States v. Green, 556 F.2d 71 (D.C. Cir. 1977). [8] Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions.[9] They point to the danger that a jury may choose to convict a defendant who has not broken the letter of the law. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the distinction between acquittal and conviction is irrelevant.[10]
Nevertheless, there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are several issues raised by jury nullification.
First, whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify.
Second, whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed.
Third, whether a judge may punish a juror for exercising his power of jury nullification.
Fourth, whether all legal arguments, except perhaps on motions in limine to exclude evidence, should be made in the presence of the jury.
In some cases in America, a stealth juror will attempt to get on a jury in order to nullify the law.[11] Some lawyers use a shadow defense to get information entered into the record that would otherwise be inadmissible hoping that evidence will trigger a jury nullification.[12][13]
[edit]Common law precedent



Even prior to Bushell's Case, Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, a Protestant dissident, was acquitted by a jury, despite the hostility of the judges.
The early history of juries supports the recognition of the de facto power of nullification. By the 12th century, common law courts in England began using juries for more than administrative duties. Juries were composed primarily of "laymen" from the local community. They provided a somewhat efficient means of dispute resolution with the benefit of supplying legitimacy.
The general power of juries to decide on verdicts were recognised in the English Magna Carta [14] of 1215, which put into words existing practices:
No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land
For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood
Largely, the earliest juries returned verdicts in accordance with the judge or the crown. This was achieved either by "packing the jury" or by "writ of attaint". Juries were packed by hand-selecting or by bribing the jury so as to return the desired verdict. This was a common tactic in cases involving treason or sedition. In addition, the writ of attaint allowed a judge to retry the case in front of a second jury when the judge believed the first jury returned a "false verdict". If the second jury returned a different verdict, that verdict was imposed and the first jury was imprisoned or fined.
This history, however, is marked by a number of notable exceptions. In 1554, a jury acquitted Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, but was severely punished by the court. Almost a century later in 1649, in the first known attempt to argue for jury nullification, a jury likewise acquitted John Lilburne for his part in inciting a rebellion against the Cromwell regime. The theoretician and politician Eduard Bernstein wrote of John Lilburne's trial:
His contention that the constitution of the Court was contrary to the fundamental laws of the country was unheeded, and his claim that the jury was legally entitled to judge not only as to matters of fact but also as to the application of the law itself, as the Judges represented only 'Norman intruders', whom the jury might here ignore in reaching a verdict, was described by an enraged judge as 'damnable, blasphemous heresy.' This view was not shared by the jury, which, after three daysâ?? hearing, acquitted Lilburne â?? who had defended himself as skilfully as any lawyer could have done â?? to the great horror of the Judges and the chagrin of the majority of the Council of State. The Judges were so astonished at the verdict of the jury that they had to repeat their question before they would believe their ears, but the public which crowded the judgment hall, on the announcement of the verdict, broke out into cheers so loud and long as, according to the unanimous testimony of contemporary reporters, had never before been heard in the Guildhall. The cheering and waving of caps continued for over half an hour, while the Judges sat, turning white and red in turns, and spread thence to the masses in London and the suburbs. At night bonfires were lighted, and even during the following days the event was the occasion of joyful demonstrations.[15]
In 1653 Lilburne was on trial again and asked the jury to acquit him if it found the death penalty "unconscionably severe" in proportion to the crime he committed. The jury found Lilburne "Not guilty of any crime worthy of death".
By the late 17th century, the court's ability to punish juries was removed in Bushell's Case[16] involving a juror on the case against William Penn. Penn and William Mead had been arrested in 1670 for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon and disturbing the peace, but four jurors, led by Edward Bushell refused to find them guilty. Instead of dismissing the jury, the judge sent them back for further deliberations. Despite the judge demanding a guilty verdict, the jury this time unanimously found Penn guilty of preaching but acquitted him on the charge of disturbing the peace and acquitted Mead of all charges. The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without "meat, drink, fire and tobacco" to force them to bring in a guilty verdict and when they failed to do so the judge ended the trial. As punishment the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court. Four jurors refused to pay the fine and after several months, Edward Bushell sought a writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Vaughan, sitting on the Court of Common Pleas, discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury "absurd" and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with.[17]
In 1681, a grand jury refused to indict the Earl of Shaftesbury. Then in 1688, a jury acquitted the Archbishop of Canterbury and six other Anglican bishops of seditious libel.
Juries continued, even in non-criminal cases, to act in defiance of the crown. In 1763 and in 1765, juries awarded £4,000 and £300 to John Wilkes and John Entick, respectively, in separate suits for trespass against the crown's messengers. In both cases, messengers were sent by Lord Halifax to seize allegedly libelous papers.
In Scotland jury nullification had the profound effect of introducing (or as others believed, reviving) the verdict of "not guilty". It was in 1728 that one Carnegie of Finhaven accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law (as it stood) required the jury merely to look at the facts and pass a verdict of "proven" or "not proven" depending on whether they believed the facts proved the defendant had killed the Earl. However, if the jury brought in a "proven" verdict they would in effect cause this innocent man to die. To avert this injustice, the jury decided to assert what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts, rendering the verdict of "not guilty" which remains in Scotland to this day. Over time, however, juries have tended to favour the "not guilty" verdict over "not proven" and with this the interpretation has changed.[citation needed] Now the "not guilty" verdict has become the normal verdict when a jury is convinced of innocence and the "not proven" verdict is only used when the jury is not certain of innocence or guilt.
Standard jury trial practice in the USA during the Founding Era and for several decades afterward was to argue all issues of law in the presence of the jury, so that the jury heard the same arguments the bench did in reaching his rulings on motions. This is evidenced by such decisions as the 1839 case Stettinius v. U.S., in which it was held that "The defense can argue law to the jury before the court gives instructions."[18] Later, judges began to demand the parties submit motions in writing, often before the jury was empaneled, to be argued and decided without the jury being present. This transition began with motions in limine, to exclude evidence, on which it was felt the jury should not hear the argument because they would be informed of the evidence to be excluded. Later that was expanded to include all legal argument, so that today, that earlier practice of arguing law before the jury has been largely forgotten, and judges even declare mistrials or overturn verdicts if legal argument is made to the jury

Every judge in every jurisdiction writes there own jury instructions in these matters. That does not make them law, that makes them a judges personal opinion.
When you sit on a jury you will find that the vast majority of these jurors have absolutely no concept of the law. Thats why when you get on the jury you must be as articulate as possible to explain your position of why you find the defendant not guilty. It is enough that one person stands up and votes not to convict, but it is even better if you can convince the other 11 jurors why the vote to acquit is the correct one. One vote to acquit will save that persons life temporarily, but the prosecutor will recharge and in all likelihood even charge the defendant with a more serious crime than first charged. But if you can persuade the other jurors to acquit he can never be charged with that crime again. Though he will still remain a target. I highly recommend that any defendant that has been acquitted in one of the cases that they move to another jurisdiction. He will be targeted for re arrest, he will targeted for retribution. It does happen. I've sat on juries where this exact thing has taken place. The cops, the prosecutors, the judges, are not your friends, they are not there to help. Educate yourself on your legal responsibilities so that you too can have knowledge on how to play the game called judicial process.