Quote Originally Posted by jamessr
So I think I called it on point in this case. Hiatt again messed up a simple MMj case. 1) State v. Fry specifically states the presentment is for an Aff. Def., not for an officer to decide but, a jury. This is so simple to present by motion...then to the jury...did this happen? NOPE.

I didn't read anything about them being denied an Aff. Def., so one would presume from what the cdc has posted, HIATT fucked up again...if they was denied the defense then the court fucked up...my bet is hiatt screwed the pooch on this one. AGAIN.
No they used the affirmative defense for the arguement, why else would a MMJ patient be in court?
There is no automatic win in court no matter what the case is. The single most important factor in any court case is the jury and I knew the defendent wasn't going to win this case but I really thought we would atleast have a hung jury. The single deciding factor, and we didn't know this till the jury re-entered the courtroom with there verdict, was the jury foreman. While most everyone thought this guy was going to be pro-defense because he had a ponytail and beard, I knew he was trouble. I had sat on a jury prior with him and he's a big law and order and absolutely follows the rules. When he was announced as jury foreman I knew the defendents were screwed. None of these MMJ cases can be won unless atleast one juror understands the concept of jury nuullification and has the compassion to use that when its needed. I would say the biggest problem in the case was there should have been more evidence as to John and Karens medical neccesity for more than the guideline amount of 15 plants. And while there was lots of testimony about that issue, it should have been really hammered home.