cannabisnews.com: Judge Tosses Out Pot-Case Panel





Judge Tosses Out Pot-Case Panel
Posted by CN Staff on June 25, 2002 at 08:08:15 PT
By Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writer
Source: Sacramento Bee
A long-smoldering medical marijuana case burst into flames Monday when a Sacramento federal judge accused the defendant of trying to taint the prospective-juror pool and had him briefly arrested.All 42 would-be jurors were disqualified by an outraged U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. when he learned that some of the panelists were given a first-person statement attributed to defendant Bryan James Epis, and a pamphlet purporting to explain how jurors are manipulated by judges.
Prospective jurors' exposure to the literature triggered a heated exchange between Damrell and an agitated J. Tony Serra, who insisted his client had nothing to do with the distribution.The one-page statement "was apparently prepared by your client" and handed to people outside the federal courthouse after they identified themselves as prospective jurors, Damrell told Serra, while the defense attorney was talking over him.The judge declared that if Epis was behind the distribution, "that's criminal contempt," adding that it "sufficiently contaminated" the panel to wipe out its viability. Damrell said he will bring in a new panel Wednesday.Meanwhile, the judge set an Aug. 1 hearing on whether Epis is guilty of obstructing justice by attempting to influence the jury.Monday's clash is the latest manifestation of the increasing tension between the advocates of California's law allowing medical use of marijuana on a doctor's recommendation and the agents and prosecutors who enforce the federal ban on pot for any purpose.Underscoring the hostile atmosphere was a federal drug agent's arrest of a leading pro-marijuana activist, who was then locked up in one of the building's holding cells. Jeffrey Jones, who was arrested outside the courthouse during the Epis hearing, was later brought before U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows. Jones was cited for a misdemeanor attempt to influence jurors by handing out the literature and released pending trial.Jones heads the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, which provided pot to patients suffering from AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other serious ailments. It was hit with an injunction two weeks ago by a federal judge in Oakland.The ruling halts the operation of such clubs, even though they are permitted under California's Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that made marijuana legal for some seriously ill patients. Next to consider that case is the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled for the pot clubs in an earlier, narrower Proposition 215 matter, but was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court found that medical necessity offers no defense to federal prosecution.Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/3339945p-4367097c.htmlSource: Sacramento Bee (CA)Author: Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff WriterPublished: Tuesday, June 25, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Sacramento BeeContact: opinion sacbee.comWebsite: http://www.sacbee.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/index.htmlMedical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by Zero_G on June 25, 2002 at 15:04:33 PT
Industrial Strength
IMHO - Your question holds the crux of democracy.I tried to point out what some of the [admittedly human and flawed, in some ways] founders of this purported republic felt. And, how far we have come from that ideal. Yes, it holds today. IF - and only if, the juror manages to get impanelled, with this information contained in hir* conciousness, not in written material.When we remember that most US citizens shun jury duty, and that the impanelling questions asked of prospective jurors remove those who disagree with the law from the jury pool, I find the term "jury of one's peers" to be meaningless.I am not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on tv... but I'm mad as hell.Zero *hir = gender neutral pronoun, curtesy Dr. Tim Leary PhD.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Industrial Strength on June 25, 2002 at 14:07:46 PT
zero g
That was super intresting, actually. ""The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy"." Wow. I wonder if that still holds true today?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by The GCW on June 25, 2002 at 10:57:36 PT
actually many facets
1 Peter 3:18; ...but made alive in the spirit...The jury of Our Father.A flame wave still at peace, that was not meant for peace.A planet step back & more.Fly beyond the comprehension of birds.Grow to become microscopic & grow some more.Learn first what We are offered, for although it is sincerely unbelievable, it IS described ---as a promise---it is told...And accept it.The love mongers The Lords of LoveThe simplification of the Commandments = Love One another.Like simple math.Do that.Do not deviate.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by The GCW on June 25, 2002 at 10:44:48 PT
One facet:
1 Peter 3:17; For it is better if God should will it so, that You suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.(We are All Green Collar Workers & guess who loves You?)Didn't they used to swear / promise on the Bible to tell the Truth?What happened?Without the Holy Spirit of Truth, it is like taking a bite out of the apple and throwing the rest away.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by The GCW on June 25, 2002 at 10:38:57 PT
kaptinemo
Was Jeffrey Jones working on behalf of the Fully Informed Jury Association people or just on his own? Is he working in conjunction with Epis? What's going on here? Isn't He working for all of Us.Yes.And if it were that He was working for Epis, and it is bad for him to do so, yet could instead work for My interest, then so be it, and include Us All here.Jeffrey Jones works for the good of Us All, including those who would unknowingly bring this harm to begin with.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on June 25, 2002 at 10:16:47 PT
The people are rebelling!
So why is it that after two -- not just one but TWO -- federal grand juries have considered the evidence against the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center, there are still no indictments?Have two federal grand juries nullified the LACRC prosecution before it even got off the ground?What is going on there? The dog ain't barking. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to know that's a bit funny.The people of California spoke once at the polls.But the people might have a few more words to say about this matter before it's over.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Zero_G on June 25, 2002 at 08:48:34 PT
Jury Nullification The Trial of John Peter Zenger
It was left to the last paragraph in the article to mention that the offending materials were from the Fully Informed Jury Association. http://www.fija.org/The pamphlet, a product of the so-called Fully Informed Jury Association, alleges that judges rarely tell jurors of their right "to judge the law itself and vote on the verdict according to conscience." The pamphlet says a person cannot be forced to obey a "juror's oath" and has the right to "hang" the jury "if you cannot agree with the other jurors." from the article.The follwing comes from: http://www.fija.org/abbrhope.htmIn colonial America, the sedition trial of John Peter Zenger established another landmark case. Zenger, a publisher, was arrested for printing news critical of the Royal Governor of New York Colony and his cronies, accusing them of corruption. His accusations were all true, but the court informed his jury that under the law, "...truth is no defense"."Philadelphia lawyer" Andrew Hamilton then told the jurors the story of William Penn, and argued that as judges of the merits of the law, they should not in good conscience convict Zenger of violating such a bad law. The jurors agreed. Zenger was acquitted in about fifteen minutes, and his case spawned recognition of our right to a free press.Cases like these therefore were part of the political heritage of the Founders, which may explain why they so appreciated jury power.John Adams said it so well in 1771 that the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) put his words on a coffee mug: "It is not only...[the juror's] right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."First U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, writing in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794, concluded: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy".President Thomas Jefferson in 1789 told Thomas Paine: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."And Noah Webster, who wrote his original 1828 dictionary in order to preserve the integrity of the language of the Constitution, defined "petty jury" as "...consisting usually of twelve men [who]...attend courts to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions".

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on June 25, 2002 at 08:28:53 PT:
We need more info on this
Was Jeffrey Jones working on behalf of the Fully Informed Jury Association people or just on his own? Is he working in conjunction with Epis? What's going on here?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment