Cannabis Yields And Dosage
Cannabis Yields And Dosage is the authoritative study of the science and legalities of calculating medical marijuana. By Chris Conrad
|
Home  Court Reports CHC Jurors Chosen for California Healthcare Collective Case
|
Jurors Chosen for California Healthcare Collective Case |
|
|
|
|
Written by Vanessa Nelson
|
|
Wednesday, April 30 2008 |
“This is About Medical Marijuana,” Judge Tells Jurors
 Protestors in front of Fresno Court building
Directly before the pool of potential jurors entered the courtroom, the judge heard various suggestions about how the nature of the case would be summarized during voir dire. The main thrust of the debate was over how the defendants’ medical marijuana dispensary, the California Healthcare Collective, would be explained. Due to the conflict between state and federal laws regarding marijuana, it was a touchy subject.
Defense attorney Anthony “Tony” Capozzi suggested that the judge describe the case as one that involved two individuals who supplied marijuana to people who had valid a doctor’s recommendations to use it. Judge Wanger made a couple of initial alterations, removing the term “valid” and switching “doctor” to “physician.” The government then asked the judge to simply say that the defendants’ business may have “sold marijuana for medicinal purposes,” thus avoiding any references to specific details and requirements of state medical marijuana laws. After weighing the two proposals, Judge Wanger ultimately decided that he would craft a new question of his own.
“I will ask if any of them are familiar with California law that allows marijuana for medicinal purposes,” the judge told the attorneys. “I’m going to try to stay neutral.”
When the time came, Judge Wanger ended up telling the prospective jurors that the case before them involved two defendants alleged to be running a medical marijuana dispensary and supplying marijuana for medical use. This revelation prompted the jurors to acknowledge a variety of personal opinions and experiences regarding the issue, and many of them even became inquisitive. A session of questioning ensued, which, at its most vigorous moments, began to seem like the jurors were interrogating the prosecutors.
The confessional period occurred while the judge probed the jury pool to discover possible sources of bias. It played out like a very condensed debate, with those commenting in favor of medical marijuana seeming to alternate with those who brought up the evils of drug abuse.
 Most of the potential jurors who reported strong opposition to marijuana said they wanted to protect their children from the dangers of drugs. One woman in particular described her son’s harrowing marijuana addiction, which had lasted from age 14 into his mid-20s, bringing great suffering and destruction to their family. However, there was also a man who identified himself as a cattle rancher who had been “directly affected by the marijuana trade” and “worked closely with the DEA against marijuana farmers.”
Still other prospective jurors felt strongly about the rights of states to make their own laws, and admitted bias against the federal government in instances when it encroached on those laws.
From another perspective, there were numerous people in the jury pool who enthusiastically supported medical marijuana for its own sake. Even some who were inexperienced with marijuana said they wanted the assurance of having it as an option for treatment in the event of future health problems. One woman spoke of her husband’s severe back injuries and speculated that, if his condition got any worse, she hoped he would be able to try medical marijuana. Another woman, in plain but powerful language, informed the judge that she had multiple sclerosis and currently used medical marijuana with a physician’s approval. She admitted that she could not be impartial when deciding the case, and she was quickly excused… as were nearly all the rest of those who made little speeches about the strength of their views.
 Ricardo Montes
The proceedings recessed for lunch after this series of mini-commentaries, and the potential jurors walked outside to find a group of approximately twenty protesters holding a noontime rally right in front of the courthouse. Clearly supporters of the defendants, the demonstrators held signs with messages like, “Not Guilty for Medical Marijuana,” “Free CHC,” and “Compassion, Not Federal Prison.” Some passersby cheered, a few others stopped to ask questions, and drivers on the busy downtown street gave an occasional honk of support. Reactions to the protest signs were varied, of course, but whatever the response, everybody looked.
Whether the sight inspired a heightening of enthusiasm within the jury pool is anybody’s guess, but whatever the explanation, the selection process got much more heated and confrontational after the lunch break.
Soon after reconvening, the government began questioning the witnesses and quickly found that the tables had turned. Suddenly, the prosecutors were being challenged to defend their decision to try a case of this nature, and the questions became so evocative that the judge stepped in to field many of them.
During the morning, one man in the jury pool had told the judge that he felt biased against the defendants, saying that he believed the government wouldn’t devote its resources to a lengthy prosecution unless there was a seriously compelling case against the accused. “I can’t help but feel there’s a cloud over the defendants,” he had commented.
After lunch, however, there was speculation about whether that cloud of suspicion had “shifted over” onto the government. “It seems like this is about state versus federal laws,” the prospective juror said, gauging the situation.
 Luke Scarmazzo
Judge Wanger stepped in at this point, fielding the questions with lengthy but general explanations. He took the jury candidates through an elementary-school description of the branches of government and their functions, then accounted for the case by saying it was brought because of a criminal investigation. “In our legal system, we have two parallel justice systems,” he reminded those in the jury pool. “We’re not making the law in this case. We’re enforcing it.”
Still, one of the prospective jurors was skeptical that there was a law to enforce in the first place. “What Constitutional authority is there for bringing these charges?” he asked pointedly.
“That is a question that, frankly, is not germane to our proceedings,” Judge Wanger said dismissively. However, he followed up with a superficial argument about the 10th Amendment, saying it allowed states to make laws only on issues where there wasn’t any federal legislation. And since there were federal laws on controlled substances, the judge stated, the government had the power to bring the current case. “There is a federal statute,” he insisted about marijuana.
It was curious that, in answer to a specific question about Constitutional authority, Judge Wanger had somehow avoided any reference to that document other than a general declaration that it was the “supreme law of the land.” It was doubly curious that he had left any mention of the Constitution out of his shrunken civics lesson about the 10th Amendment, since it addresses the powers granted or denied by the Constitution and the Constitution only.
Questions stopped bubbling up out of the jury pool after a while, and the mavericks were quickly fished out through challenges from both sides. All in all, it turned out to be an exceptionally participatory and engaged pool of jurors, and even after its most vocal members were gone, their words were still fresh in the ears of all who remained. A showing of critical thought and challenge to authority had been made, and perhaps a legacy would be left with those who were officially seated on the jury. Or, at least, that’s what the defendants are hoping for, as it could be their only shot at avoiding sentences of life imprisonment.
 Be first to comment this article | |
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. |
|
|
