cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana Proponents Protest Conviction





Medical Marijuana Proponents Protest Conviction
Posted by CN Staff on July 16, 2002 at 07:40:27 PT
By Chris Rizo - Capitol Correspondent 
Source: Chico Enterprise-Record 
Decrying last week's conviction of a Chico medical marijuana dispenser, dozens of activists protested outside the state Department of Justice's headquarters Monday, calling on government to keep its hands off their medicine.On Thursday, a jury of eight women and four men found Bryan James Epis guilty of federal charges of conspiring to grow more than 1,000 marijuana plants near a Chico school, for which the Chicoan now faces a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison. 
Epis, who plans to appeal the decision, is scheduled for sentencing on Aug. 26. In the meantime he remains in custody. Intensifying tensions between the federal government and local advocates who point to a 1996 voter-approved state law that allows the use of medically necessary marijuana, protesters Monday said they will continue pressuring state authorities to challenge the federal law that prohibits the use of cannabis for any purpose. "This man's only crime is obeying California law, and his motive was to reduce suffering of sick people," said Aundre Speciale of Americans for Safe Access, a grass-roots group of medical marijuana supporters. "What we want to know is what will Gov. Gray Davis and Attorney General Bill Lockyer do to protect patients and to secure Bryan Epis' freedom," Speciale continued. Epis, who says he uses marijuana for neck pain resulting from a near-fatal traffic crash, argued outside the courtroom he had the right to dispense marijuana to seriously ill patients under provisions of California's Compassionate Use Act. U.S. District Court Judge Frank C. Damrell, however, forbid Epis' attorney, the famous barrister J. Tony Serra, to use a medical marijuana defense to justify Epis' conduct of illegal cultivation, noting a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision which ruled such a defense is not valid. Don Duncan, a medical marijuana user who joined the protest from Berkeley, said Epis' conviction is largely the consequence of an uninformed jury, which was not allowed to consider the compassionate circumstances surrounding the case. "Had the jurors known that this was a medical marijuana case they would have acquitted," Duncan said. "The jury had no idea that the crime that they voted to convict on has a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence." Members of the Butte Alliance for Medical Marijuana said the case has had a chilling effect on north state medical marijuana users. "We have all gone to jail at some time for growing our own since Bryan's arrest," said Mike Rogers, now of Live Oak, who faced cultivating charges after being arrested in Cohasset in 1999. He was acquitted in Butte County Superior Court two years later after he presented a medical marijuana defense. Added Dinah Coffman, director of BAMM: "This has had a ripple effect. Now I have to try to grow my own medicine, and I have people trying to break into my yard to get it." The case against Epis, which is the first federal prosecution involving a cannabis buyers' club, endured a string of procedural challenges, including dismissal of the first jury pool after the potential panel was tainted by pro-medical marijuana protesters dispensing leaflets outside Sacramento's federal court building.Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA)Author: Chris Rizo - Capitol Correspondent Published: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 Copyright: 2002 The Media News GroupContact: letters chicoer.comWebsite: http://www.chicoer.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Americans for Safe Accesshttp://safeaccessnow.org Medicinal Cannabis Research Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/research.htmFirst Federal Medical Marijuana Conviction http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13398.shtmlConviction in Federal Pot Trialhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13389.shtmlMarijuana Grower Convicted in Jury Verdicthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13383.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on July 17, 2002 at 07:17:51 PT
Might makes Right
 Shouldn't the jury determine if a defense is valid? Why do I have to have my defense strategy approved by the court? Shouldn't the jury have decided if "medical use" was a valid defense argument?I remember asking these very same questions when I read about the trial of Leonard Peltier in Peter Matthiesons "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse".The Federal Judge decided about each piece of supporting defensive evidence and threw it all out.I kept thinking about that as the Judge went though various contortions to keep jurors from knowing what the trail was REALLY about. Thet were specifically and purposefully sheltered from any inormation about Fully Informed Juries, and the State Law was specifically not to be mentioned at all. The Prosecution whined and complained that the jury would balk at a guilty charge if they knew how severe the sentence was going to be. First the Sentence, then the trial, eh? How would the jury have felt or acted knowing these things.They were essentially manipulated to get a "kangaruling" (grin) to aid the Feds in thier Hostile Takeover of the State of California. I have come to realize the Feds see California much as China sees Hong Kong. Too much free thought and lots and lots of money to steal.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Prime on July 16, 2002 at 12:46:38 PT
Call me naive...
" ...noting a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision which ruled such a defense is not valid."I know this happened, but I fail to see the logic. Shouldn't the jury determine if a defense is valid? Why do I have to have my defense strategy approved by the court?If I get caught speeding, am I limited to how I can defend myself? Can't I say "it was a medical emergency" and then let the jury decide? Granted, there aren't juries in minor traffic violations, but you get my point.Shouldn't the jury have decided if "medical use" was a valid defense argument? It just doesnt seem right that a defendant can have his testimony suppressed by the whim of a judge, and not be able to tell the whole story.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment