cannabisnews.com: Hallinan Subpoenaed To Testify in Pot Case Hallinan Subpoenaed To Testify in Pot Case Posted by FoM on August 06, 2001 at 07:55:25 PT By Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer Source: San Francisco Chronicle San Francisco District Attorney Terence -- star defense witness in a Sonoma County marijuana case earlier this year -- is now fighting a subpoena to testify in a pot case filed by his own office. Robert Bustamante, 57, who is charged with possession of marijuana for sale, wants Hallinan to take the stand on his behalf. Bustamante was arrested in the Tenderloin in March. Bustamante's attorney, George C. Beckwith, said his client, who was previously convicted on marijuana charges, has a history of trying to get marijuana for arthritis in the neck and shoulders. Knowing of Hallinan's previous defense of two men accused in Sonoma County, Beckwith sought Hallinan to come to court today, but the city has filed a motion to fight it. A hearing is set for Aug. 20. Hallinan's office has refused to comment on the matter, saying it is being handled by the city attorney's office. Bustamante is in jail for a parole violation and is awaiting trial in the case. Hallinan wants him sentenced to 16 months. "If they want people to go to prison for marijuana, they are going to have to try them and convict them," Beckwith said. "We are going to call relevant witnesses, in a case of possession for sale of marijuana, Hallinan is a relevant witness." In a letter to Beckwith, the city attorney's office asks that Beckwith withdraw the subpoena, saying there are no "compelling reasons" for Hallinan to take the stand and that his testimony would be "irrelevant." Beckwith said that in April, two men who had been accused of felony drug offenses for growing marijuana for a San Francisco medical pot club were acquitted of all counts by a Sonoma County jury after Hallinan testified on their behalf. "Terence testified in another case involving a barnload of marijuana that they were performing a public service in San Francisco," Beckwith said. He said his client should have the right to compel Hallinan's testimony. Beckwith said the case should not have been filed, but if it is going to be sought, his client should get treatment and not jail time. "The reason he has been smoking dope so much, is it alleviates his arthritic pain, which he has had for years." "When I read that Hallinan said these guys with a barnload were doing us a favor, I thought, what about this guy?" Sanctions Threatened The city attorney handling Hallinan's case wrote back to Beckwith, threatening him with sanctions. "The witness' support for the use of medical marijuana has no relevance to your case. Your client, who has twice previously been convicted for selling drugs, was caught selling drugs on a street corner, not at a cannabis club," Deputy City Attorney Gregory Nevis wrote. "If we are forced to file a motion to quash, we will seek sanctions." In the case in Sonoma County, the defendants had argued that their actions were legal given state voters' passage in 1996 of Proposition 215, which allows a primary caregiver or patient to cultivate and possess cannabis for medical purposes. Charges against the two men followed a May 14, 1999, bust at a rented Petaluma farm, where sheriff's deputies found 899 plants, hashish and a rifle. Both of the men were involved in dispensing pot to the 1,280 patients at CHAMP -- Cannabis Helping Alleviate Medical Problems -- in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood. Hallinan Testifies The first defense witness was Hallinan, an advocate of medical marijuana who said the case would never have come to trial in San Francisco. Hallinan said the defendants, the head of the pot club Kenneth E. Hayes and general manager Michael S. Foley, were operating within the guidelines of Proposition 215. "I'm just here testifying on behalf of a guy who, in my opinion, is performing a public service in San Francisco in terms of helping a lot of sick people alleviate their suffering by supplying them with marijuana," Hallinan said during a break in the trial. Patting Hayes on the right shoulder as he strode toward the stand, Hallinan said he had met with the defendant "four to six" times and had visited the pot club three times to watch the operations, including how staffers dispensed the drug and verified patients' authorization by licensed doctors. Hallinan said the "tricky part" of Proposition 215 for marijuana clubs was finding a pot supply that didn't involve black market purchases. Hayes helped devise San Francisco's registration system of patients, he added. Hayes told Hallinan he wanted to cut the drug costs by cultivating the plant himself, experimenting with different strains and using pesticide-free methods. "I think that what Ken Hayes was doing was protected by Proposition 215," Hallinan said. "I would say he was the most helpful of all the people involved in the medical marijuana movement." Under cross examination, Hallinan admitted he knew few details of the men's 899-plant operation in six greenhouses and a barn on Petaluma's King Road. Hallinan also wrote a ballot argument, in which he said the proposition wouldn't 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." Note: District attorney fights summons. Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff WriterPublished: Monday, August 6, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Chronicle - Page A - 13Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles & Web Site:C.H.A.M.P.http://www.champsf.org/Petaluma Duo Acquitted In Pot Growing Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9577.shtml2 Acquitted in Medical Marijuana Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9407.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Post Comment