cannabisnews.com: Pair Guilty of Conspiracy





Pair Guilty of Conspiracy
Posted by FoM on February 23, 2000 at 14:43:26 PT
By Maline Hazle, Record Searchlight
Source: Record Searchlight
In verdicts that raise more questions about medicinal marijuana law, a Shasta County jury Tuesday acquitted a Redding mother and son of growing marijuana and the son of possessing pot for sale, but found both guilty of conspiracy to cultivate marijuana.
Within minutes of the announcement, Redding attorney Eric Berg, who represents Jim Hall, 38, and Lydia Hall, 62, asked Superior Court Judge Bradley Boeckman to set aside the guilty verdicts, calling them ''inconsistent and illegal as a matter of law.''''I don't think it's something I just want to shoot from the hip on,'' Boeckman replied, telling Berg he would make that decision at the Halls' sentencing hearing April 10. The Halls remain free until that date.Boeckman also ordered the Halls to cooperate with county probation officers, who will make recommendations about sentencing.The mother and son face up to three years in prison if the verdicts stand.It was the second time since December that a Shasta County jury has acquitted a medicinal marijuana patient of growing marijuana for sale.Tuesday's verdicts came after about 21/2 days of deliberations by the 10-woman, two-man jury and just as defendant Jim Hall returned from a hospital emergency room where he had gone for treatment of intense back spasms his attorney said were prompted by a weekend bout with flu and vomiting.The jury's deliberations were punctuated by several questions for the court, including an inquiry about whether Jim Hall could be convicted of possession and cultivation of marijuana if he had pot ''in excess of what is reasonable use.''Shasta County sheriff's deputies last year confiscated 188 plants from the Halls' garage and 49 from a hydroponic garden in Jim Hall's closet — most of them seedlings. In addition, six sandwich bags of processed marijuana were seized.The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, under which the Halls received doctors' recommendations for marijuana use, does not specify how many plants patients can grow or how much marijuana they may possess.But prosecutor Tim Kam argued during the trial that the Halls had far too many plants for personal use, so Jim Hall must have been planning to sell some of it.Jurors seemed to agree with Kam — to an extent.''What we were struggling with was the amounts and the intent,'' said juror Don Matthews, 50, of Cottonwood. ''That was when we had to, or at least I had to, haggle with the Compassionate Use Act. Once the plants moved from the closet to the garage, that showed an intent to grow more.''Juror Myra Grow of Redding said the panel ''felt that there was a very high possibility'' that the Halls took advantage of the law.''There were a couple of jurors that said the marijuana law is very black and white, and they felt that no matter what evidence was brought in, they could walk because it was medical marijuana,'' she said.''We all felt that if he had kept his grow confined to the closet that he could have been growing it just for them, but when he took that leap and moved it to the garage we started saying, 'Well, I don't know.'''The jury found the Halls guilty of conspiracy because ''they conspired to break the law and abuse the law,'' said jury forewoman Stacy Gardner, 34, of Palo Cedro.Lydia Hall's testimony that she didn't smoke much marijuana and didn't really like it made it harder for the jury to believe that Jim Hall was going to keep all the plants he was growing, Gardner said.''We all believed she (Lydia Hall) was innocent up to a certain point, but she crossed that line,'' Gardner said. ''She went too far, allowed too much.'' Gardner said jurors did not doubt Jim Hall's ''medical need'' for marijuana.''But we all believed that the law was not written as a free enterprise to grow as much pot as you want.''After the verdict Gardner wished Lydia Hall well and told her that Jim Hall wouldn't have been convicted had he ''left the plants in the closet.''Lydia Hall told Gardner that her son's closet garden simply had not produced enough.''I've never done any illegal thing in my life but driving fast, and I'm not about to start now,'' Lydia Hall said.Her son said that he ''never intended to sell pot. ... I've never sold drugs in my life. I'm no angel, but not that.''He questioned how he could be acquitted of a crime but convicted of a conspiracy to commit that crime.''I'm totally confused'' by the verdict, he said.Berg declined to comment on the verdict, but his words to Judge Boeckman made it clear that he believed it was inconsistent.Prosecutor Kam called the verdicts ''an innovative decision of the jury,'' adding that he would ''never want to question the work of a jury.''Kam's boss, District Attorney McGregor Scott, said he knows that Berg will ''file an appropriate motion and we will file an appropriate response.''''Conspiracy and commission of a crime are two different things,'' Scott said. ''Would I think they (the verdicts) are legally inconsistent. My answer is no.''He said conspiracy could be ''projected into the future,'' meaning that the Halls could have been conspiring to grow big crops in the future even if the plants seized by deputies were very small.Forewoman Gardner criticized both Kam and Berg for not having presented ''more evidence, better evidence'' and not having ''presented it better.''All three jurors interviewed criticized the medicinal marijuana law as being ''vague,'' and Scott agreed.''This case has again demonstrated the need for clarification at the state level,'' he said. ''I cannot think of a more stark example as to why clarification is needed.''That clarification may come in the form of legislation being drafted at the behest of state Sen. Maurice Johannessen, R-Redding, who announced Jan. 21 that he would write legislation to clear up the law.The legislation is still being drafted, Undersheriff Larry Schaller said Tuesday afternoon.Schaller also said that the sheriff and Scott have agreed on a set of guidelines that police, deputies and prosecutors can use to determine whether to arrest and prosecute people who have obtained doctors' recommendations to use marijuana. Those guidelines will be released later this week, Schaller said.Sheriff Jim Pope promised to develop those guidelines after the December acquittal of Richard Levin, 49, of Redding, who also had been accused of possessing marijuana for sale.Judge Boeckman ordered Levin's seven bags of marijuana returned after the acquittal, but on Jan. 21 a U.S. magistrate in Sacramento issued a seizure warrant and Shasta County sheriff's deputies handed over Levin's pot to a federal drug agent.Berg, who also represented Levin, has asked Boeckman to hold the sheriff and Schaller in contempt of court.Tuesday Schaller said his department will not simply abandon investigation of medical marijuana.''We will proceed on a case-by-case review of cultivation and possession cases,'' he said. ''I would still characterize the Hall and Levin matters as being much less to do with medical marijuana and everything to do with commercial cultivation.''Scott said he does not intend to stop prosecuting medicinal marijuana cases because of the acquittals.''We will continue to do what we have in the past — review each case on its own merits and make decisions on whether or not to prosecute,'' he said.Reporter Kimberly Bolander contributed to this article.Reporter Maline Hazle can be reached at 225-8266 or at: mhazle redding.comPublished: February 22, 2000© 2000 Record Searchlight - The E.W. Scripps Co.Related Articles:  No Medicinal Pot Verdict Yet http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread4781.shtmlJury Weighs Evidence in Pot Trialhttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread4759.shtmlGrandma Says She Used Pot To Ease Painhttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread4637.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: