Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Keeps Tight Rein on Pot Trial (Judge takes over questioning of witness from the defense)
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Jan. 31, 2003 | Bob Egelko

Posted on 01/31/2003 9:12:22 AM PST by Wolfie

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

References to medical uses quickly squelched in federal court.

The Bay Area's first federal medical marijuana trial ended Thursday with a bizarre touch that symbolized the entire case: The judge took over questioning of a defense witness to make sure he didn't refer to the medical use of marijuana.


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: brideobubba; drugskill; drugwar; wodkills; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

1 posted on 01/31/2003 9:12:22 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy; Hemingway's Ghost; Xenalyte; *Wod_list; EBUCK; bassmaner; headsonpikes; FreeTally
"Grounds for appeal" ping
2 posted on 01/31/2003 9:15:50 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Boy this War on Drugs is really doing a bang up job on our rights.

Here just some of our rights being abused in this mock trial:


3 posted on 01/31/2003 9:19:01 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Grounds for appeal, indeed. Too bad the prosecution can't use them.
4 posted on 01/31/2003 9:19:10 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dead
"But Prop. 215 sifted into the case, with demonstrations by taped-mouth supporters outside the courthouse, pretrial questioning of jurors about their views on the measure, and incessant defense efforts to slip words like "medical" and "patient" into questioning or testimony, which generally drew rebukes from Breyer."

"after defense lawyer Robert Eye made one of his numerous attempts to enter a forbidden area."

"when Eye urged jurors to use their "common sense of justice,"

"Rosenthal's supporters, who had packed the courtroom, groaned"

"U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer -- told jurors to disregard the reference."

But this is OK with you? You must have loved the OJ case, then. A real law and order type you are.

5 posted on 01/31/2003 9:40:30 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; headsonpikes; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; ...
WOD Ping. I could have sworn I was reading about the Milosevic tribunal.
6 posted on 01/31/2003 9:48:37 AM PST by jmc813 (Do tigers sleep in lily patches? Do rhinos run from thunder?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
What happened to state's rights?
7 posted on 01/31/2003 9:53:08 AM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The FRugitive
States Rights were strongly upheld in the good ol' days of Conservativism. But then the States had to go and get uppity, so THAT had to stop.
8 posted on 01/31/2003 9:54:59 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
A real law and order type you are.

Sure am. Strict constitutionalist.

You should read it sometime, particularly the tenth amendment.

9 posted on 01/31/2003 9:56:07 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
We need a party that fits somewhere in between the Republican (semi-democrat party) and the Libertarian (almost anarchist party).

Warning! Religious Reference Follows:

The 10 Commandments worked great for thousands of years without any necessary add ons ... but I am NOT advocating a theocracy (far from it!)
10 posted on 01/31/2003 10:02:48 AM PST by steplock ( http://www.spadata.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
This is the first I've ever heard of a Judge taking over the questioning of a witness on the stand.
11 posted on 01/31/2003 10:07:09 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Huh I guess the majority of the people on this thread will not cite the 2001 Supreme Court case in which the court voted 8-0 that the Federal Government has the right to prosecute cases against "medical marijuana" clubs.

Good to see a Judge follow the law and should be lauded for his effort to follow the law.

12 posted on 01/31/2003 10:16:41 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
They've been gunning for Rosenthal for decades. This is all about getting him, nothing more. One of the prosecution's star witnesses is a guy who is doing the same thing, even as we speak, that Ed is on trial for. The Feds gave him immunity to force him to testify against Ed. Rosenthal has just pissed off too many people by writing books and testifying as an expert witness for the defense in many cultivation trials over the years.
13 posted on 01/31/2003 10:19:53 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Breyer cut him off and said, "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that is, for your duty to follow the law."

Blatent nonsense.

Judge just lied to the jury.

14 posted on 01/31/2003 10:33:52 AM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
I know that, you know that, and Judge Breyer knows that. And the jury knowing it scares the robes off of idjits like Breyer.
15 posted on 01/31/2003 10:37:18 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Huh I guess the majority of the people on this thread will not cite the 2001 Supreme Court case in which the court voted 8-0 that the Federal Government has the right to prosecute cases against "medical marijuana" clubs.

So the federal government applied the imprimatur of the federal government to sanction the federal government’s usurpation of rights that were never granted to the federal government?

They can because they can.

16 posted on 01/31/2003 10:40:18 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
" Oakland's endorsement of his work as a medical marijuana supplier"

Anyone wonder why they did not go after an entrapment defense?
Seems if a government albeit a state and city say you can do something and then gov't thugs in black masks take you away for doing that same thing it is entrapment.
17 posted on 01/31/2003 10:42:17 AM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
RE-LEGALIZE
18 posted on 01/31/2003 10:44:01 AM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
It goes a lot further than that. Ed was basically contracted by the City of Oakland to grow the stuff. I wonder why the Feds aren't charging the city with conspiracy to manufacture?
19 posted on 01/31/2003 10:47:16 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dead
Strict constitutionalist.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution mandates that federal law supersede state law where there is an outright conflict between such laws. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 (9 Wheat) U.S. 1, 210, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824); Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663, 666, 82 S. Ct. 1089, 8 L.Ed.2d 180 (1962); Industrial Truck Ass'n, Inc. v. Henry, 125 F.3d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1997) (state law is preempted "where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal requirements, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress"). Recognizing this basic principle of constitutional law, defendants do not contend that Proposition 215 supersedes federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Indeed, Proposition 215 on its face purports only to exempt certain patients and their primary caregivers from prosecution under certain California drug laws-it does not purport to exempt those patients and caregivers from the federal laws. One of the ballot arguments in favor of the initiative in fact states: "Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana simply because federal law prevents the sale of marijuana and a state initiative cannot overrule those laws." Peron, 59 Cal.App.4th at 1393, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 (quoting Ballot Pamphlet, Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen.Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996 p. 60)).

May 13, 1998 Order from the District Court
20 posted on 01/31/2003 11:00:01 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"But Prop. 215 sifted into the case, with demonstrations by taped-mouth supporters outside the courthouse, pretrial questioning of jurors about their views on the measure, and incessant defense efforts to slip words like "medical" and "patient" into questioning or testimony, which generally drew rebukes from Breyer."

Sounds like Rosenthal's street theater allies wanted to misrepresent Proposition 215 to the jury.

21 posted on 01/31/2003 11:02:48 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Someday a representative crew of these soi-dissant "law and order" triumphalist bast*rds will be put on trial, themselves.

They may sulk, but they will probably be grateful for the fact they get a trial. ;^)
22 posted on 01/31/2003 11:19:47 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
I don't think we have to worry about a Kanadian takeover.
23 posted on 01/31/2003 11:21:47 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Libertarians are the way to go, with the opposition of the libs(Ds and Rs) we would have balance for once.
24 posted on 01/31/2003 11:35:38 AM PST by jeremiah (Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
the whole case is grounds for appeal,
Jury nullications sounds like a possiblity here!!!!!
25 posted on 01/31/2003 11:39:35 AM PST by vin-one (I wish i had something clever to put in this tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Wolfie
Can you say KANGAROO COURT! I know you can.
27 posted on 01/31/2003 11:53:12 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimt

Watch your mouth, bipedal!

We kangaroos have ethics,
unlike the JBTs and Judge Breyer!

28 posted on 01/31/2003 11:56:43 AM PST by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
One of the prosecution's star witnesses is a guy who is doing the same thing, even as we speak, that Ed is on trial for.

That "guy" was a patient, wasn't he?

Is Ed?

This was how Proposition 215's supporters sold the measure to the voters on the actual ballot:

"Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana simply because federal laws prevent the sale of marijuana, and a state initiative cannot overrule those laws."

Argument in Favor of Proposition 215
29 posted on 01/31/2003 12:08:19 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
No the "guy", Bob Martin, openly operates several marijuana dispensaries.

Regarding Martin, the prosecutor, George Bevan, told the jury:

"You could say he's violating the law, why isn't he on trial? Well that's not for you to consider."

30 posted on 01/31/2003 12:13:21 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
You seem to be following this in the local press.
Is there any doubt that at least several people on the jury know what the case is about, i.e., the referendum, etc.?
31 posted on 01/31/2003 12:20:11 PM PST by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Former club employee Robert Martin, who was forced to testify under a grant of immunity, alleged that Hayes drew down the club's accounts to pay for his exile. Bills went unpaid and the power was shut off. Martin, who now runs another medical marijuana club, began covering expenses out of his own pocket, but testified that he wrote Rosenthal bad checks for his plants because he believed Rosenthal was attempting to take over the operation. The prosecution then produced an unsigned letter to Rosenthal, seized from Watts' computer. The letter suggests that Rosenthal was selling bug-infested plants as an act of ''willfull sabotage'' to infect other growers and corner the medical marijuana market, a charge Rosenthal denies.

Rosenthal's Federal Drug Trial Turns Surreal

Quite a pair.

32 posted on 01/31/2003 12:23:58 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
It would be hard to think that nobody on the jury knows about Prop. 215, but then again, you never know.
33 posted on 01/31/2003 12:24:07 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: The FRugitive
What happened to state's rights?

Destroyed by the fedgovs with the complicity of the robertpaulsens and Roscoes of the nation.

34 posted on 01/31/2003 1:07:37 PM PST by Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
""You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that is, for your duty to follow the law." "

This is a lie, and the judge should be impeached for uttering such drivel to a jury.

L

35 posted on 01/31/2003 1:10:36 PM PST by Lurker (Don't p*** on my back and tell me it's raining.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution mandates that federal law supersede state law where there is an outright conflict between such laws. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 (9 Wheat) U.S. 1, 210, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824); Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663, 666, 82 S. Ct. 1089, 8 L.Ed.2d 180 (1962); Industrial Truck Ass'n, Inc. v. Henry, 125 F.3d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1997) (state law is preempted "where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal requirements, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress"). Recognizing this basic principle of constitutional law, defendants do not contend that Proposition 215 supersedes federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Indeed, Proposition 215 on its face purports only to exempt certain patients and their primary caregivers from prosecution under certain California drug laws-it does not purport to exempt those patients and caregivers from the federal laws. One of the ballot arguments in favor of the initiative in fact states: "Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana simply because federal law prevents the sale of marijuana and a state initiative cannot overrule those laws." Peron, 59 Cal.App.4th at 1393, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 (quoting Ballot Pamphlet, Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen.Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996 p. 60)).

Facts aren't your forté.

36 posted on 01/31/2003 1:11:50 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You forgot the bold tags!

complicity - 1. participation in wrongdoing, esp. in a crime.

Cut-and-paste examples of nefarious judicial opinions are a poor substitute for the constitution and common sense. It's a little like listening to the ravings of an Islamofascist Imam rather than hearing the word of God in your own heart.

It seems your own thoughts are suffering from shrinkage.

37 posted on 01/31/2003 1:26:31 PM PST by Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Facts aren't your forté.

They surely don't seem to be yours, since that is a judicial opinion you just cut-and-pasted. Or are judges issuing facts now?

38 posted on 01/31/2003 1:30:36 PM PST by Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
nefarious judicial opinions

This was how Proposition 215's supporters sold the measure to the voters on the actual ballot:

"Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana simply because federal laws prevent the sale of marijuana, and a state initiative cannot overrule those laws."

Argument in Favor of Proposition 215

Facts aren't your forté.

39 posted on 01/31/2003 1:31:56 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I see you remembered the bold tags. Nice going!
40 posted on 01/31/2003 1:34:11 PM PST by Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
The facts sunk ya again.
41 posted on 01/31/2003 1:35:53 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Yeah, right. Whatever. I really don't care how 215 was sold, or even what it says. I am an anti-prohibitionist. I consider the CSA to be unconstitutional, as do many. You can cut and paste until your mouse breaks. That won't change the fact that the fedgov, with the complicity, of the USSC, has overstepped its authority and is out of control (and has been since for almost a century).

Of course you wouldn't understand being passionate about freedom, since you can't cut and paste that.

42 posted on 01/31/2003 1:58:04 PM PST by Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
Proposition 215 does not allow ''unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere." It only allows marijuana to be grown for a patient's personal use. Police officers can still arrest anyone who grows too much, or tries to sell it.

Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 215

Pesky old facts.

43 posted on 01/31/2003 2:01:16 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Cut-and-paste. No thoughts of your own. Sad.
44 posted on 01/31/2003 2:04:45 PM PST by Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
Of course you wouldn't understand being passionate about freedom, since you can't cut and paste that.

Only you and your cohorts at NORML can cut and paste that, especially when the issue of marijuana.

Whew maybe short term memory loss is not the only consequence of chronic marijuana use. Maybe the scientific community should look into the aspect of hubris.

Whoops scratch that, the loss of short term memory and the perpensity for hubris would point to a Hillary type of personality, and thay is verboten.

45 posted on 01/31/2003 2:19:27 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
Pesky old facts.
46 posted on 01/31/2003 2:26:56 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dane
For them, freedom means dope. Nothing more.
47 posted on 01/31/2003 2:28:55 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
"You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that is, for your duty to follow the law."

Monstrous.

This argument was dealt with properly at the gallows of Nuremberg.

48 posted on 01/31/2003 2:30:22 PM PST by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jodorowsky
Drug dealers equal Jewish holocaust victims?
49 posted on 01/31/2003 2:33:22 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Better watch your back, Roscoe....

the Kanadians are keeping an eye on you.

No, not the gubmint, the growers.

;^)
50 posted on 01/31/2003 2:42:45 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson