cannabisnews.com: Jury Considers Marijuana Case 





Jury Considers Marijuana Case 
Posted by CN Staff on August 10, 2002 at 11:22:37 PT
By Maline Hazle, Record Searchlight 
Source: Record Searchlight 
Jurors began deliberations late Friday in a civil lawsuit against Shasta County and two sheriff's deputies stemming from the arrest and jailing of a medicinal marijuana patient four years ago.The nine-woman, three-man Shasta County Superior Court panel retired from the third floor courtroom about 3:15 after a day spent listening to one last county witness, closing arguments and jury instructions.
The group worked until about 5 p.m. and was expected to resume deliberations Monday morning.Unlike a criminal jury, the civil panel is charged with answering a list of more than 80 questions about facts in the case filed by Richard Levin, 52, and his wife Kim, 38, both of Redding.The jury's answers to the questions will then be melded with civil law and some of the issues will be decided by visiting Judge Carol S. Koppel, of Los Angeles.Only nine of the 12 jurors must agree to settle each of the issues. Damages in the case will not be considered until after the initial determinations, jurors were instructed.The Levins' suit contends that Richard Levin was falsely arrested, that Kim Levin was falsely detained and that Richard Levin's severe medical problems were ignored during the three days he spent at Shasta County Jail.Richard Levin, who broke his back in a fall from a roof in 1993, suffers from chronic pain, bladder and bowel problems. He has testified that he uses marijuana to help treat his symptoms.He was arrested May 8, 1998, by deputies armed with a search warrant sparked, in part, by tips from his son and ex-wife that he was growing marijuana for sale. Among the arresting deputies were now-retired Chester Ashmun and Tom Barner, who are defendants in the lawsuit.Kim Levin also was eventually charged in the case, but the charge was dropped. On Dec. 15, 1999 a Shasta County Superior Court jury acquitted Richard Levin of growing marijuana for sale.The final witness in the civil trial was Dr. John Levin, an expert witness from Los Angeles with two decades of emergency room and jail medical experience. John Levin is not related to Richard Levin.The doctor, who said he had studied all the jail's records and procedures and Richard Levin's medical history, said local jailers provided "totally adequate" treatment for Levin and did not err in failing to seek additional treatment for their prisoner.Levin, who must insert a catheter to urinate and manually stimulate bowel movements, testified that jailers ignored his requests for proper equipment and he was not able to urinate or defecate during his three-day jail stay.A catheter wasn't necessary, Dr. Levin said, because Richard Levin was able to secrete small amounts of urine by pressing on his abdomen. Nor is it necessary for people to have daily bowel movements, the doctor said under questioning from John Hagar, the San Francisco attorney representing the county.Under cross-examination by Oakland attorney William Simpich, Dr. Levin bristled, repeatedly accusing Richard Levin's lawyer of asking "vague," "ambiguous" and "unanswerable" questions.He acknowledged that three days without a bowel movement could cause discomfort or a swollen colon, "but not disease, per se."In his closing arguments Simpich told jurors that the case "is about fairness" and suggested that in ignoring Richard Levin's claims to be growing marijuana for medical use, deputies were people fighting a drug war "who get caught up in a war mentality.""We're not asking you to legalize marijuana for recreational activity," Simpich said. "We're not asking you to do anything about marijuana at all."In jail, Richard Levin "could not get the help he needed, could not get to a telephone and did not have a pencil in hand," Simpich said. "What I'm asking you (jurors) today is to take the pencil and use it where it will do the most good."Hagar accused the plaintiffs of sending up smoke screens and contended that without written permission from his doctor to use marijuana, Richard Levin was not a legitimate medical marijuana user.Nor can he prove any medical problems resulted from his jail treatment, Hagar said."There's two pretty different versions of the truth," Hagar said. "You have to decide who is telling the truth here — Tom Barner and Chet Ashmun or Richard and Kim Levin.Citing a series of what he said were holes in the plaintiffs' case, Hagar argued "someone's not telling you the full story." Note: 2 deputies sued in jailing of a medicinal pot patient. Source: Redding Record Searchlight (CA)Author: Maline Hazle, Record SearchlightPublished: Saturday, August 10, 2002 Copyright: 2002 Redding Record Searchlight - E.W. Scripps Contact: letters redding.com Website: http://www.redding.com/ Related Articles:Medical Marijuana User on 'Quest for Justice' http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13693.shtmlLevins Sue Over Pot Arresthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread4758.shtmlRedding Police Won't Return Marijuana to Vethttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread4663.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by Nuevo Mexican on August 10, 2002 at 16:32:19 PT
Right on!
Tell it E.J. ! Couldn't agree more!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on August 10, 2002 at 12:42:44 PT
A hole in the case like?
A hole in the case like the fact that Levin's name was on the sick call list an hour before he was even booked?How could that have happened, pray tell, unless the police are experienced and deliberate liars? Mature criminals, as they would call themselves.The National Academy of Sciences had panel discussion a few years back on torture and many experienced international aid workers explained how torturers are desensitized to the suffering of their victims as part of their training. And on the panel there was an American, a very regretful former prison doctor, who spoke about how he was desensitized to the suffering of drug inmates under his care to the point where the level of medical care they were being denied amounted to torture.This so-called expert witness sounds like he has yet to reach the regretful stage of his career in "medicine".
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment