cannabisnews.com: Judge OKs Poll of Pot Trial Jurors 





Judge OKs Poll of Pot Trial Jurors 
Posted by FoM on August 23, 2000 at 09:08:27 PT
By Jessica R. Towhey, Journal Staff Writer 
Source: Auburn Journal 
Acknowledging the charges facing Steven and Michele Kubby are more substantial than a run-of-the-mill drug case, a judge ruled on Tuesday to allow attorneys to poll potential jurors on their bias toward marijuana being used for medicinal purposes.Defense lawyer J. David Nick argued in an almost empty Auburn courtroom that emotions run high in a case such as the one against the Kubbys, who face a total of 19 criminal counts of possession and cultivation of marijuana and other illicit substances. 
And the issue of medical marijuana, under which auspices the Kubbys claim to have grown their 265 plants, brings out what Nick termed as "violent responses" from both sides of the issue."This is the first law since the 1920s that has allowed anyone to lawfully cultivate and possess marijuana," Nick said of Proposition 215.But prosecutors objected to Nick's line of reasoning, stating they have pursued the case against the Kubbys as they would any drug-possession case."It has been suggested – and I disagree – that this case is emotionally charged," said Supervising Deputy District Attorney Gene Gini. "For some maybe, but not for many others."Superior Court Judge John L. Cosgrove, however, disagreed with the prosecutors. According to Cosgrove, it would be better for any "deep-seated bias" held by potential jurors to be discovered by the attorneys prior to the matter coming to trial.Jury selection began Tuesday morning with roughly 300 Placer County residents being asked to fill out questionnaires. Given the lengthy trial calendar – court is expected to extend into November – five alternate jurors will be selected.Additionally, the trial will proceed on a shortened schedule to accommodate Steven Kubby's medical condition. Kubby suffers from malignant pheochromocytoma, a rare form of adrenal cancer that causes the amount of adrenaline in his body to rise to life-threatening levels.Kubby, who possesses a physician's recommendation for medical marijuana, produced a letter from Dr. David E. Kim, a Laguna Beach internist, who wrote that "unusual levels of stress would therefore result in potentially disabling symptoms" that could lead to acute cerebral hemorrhage, among other symptoms.Michele Kubby holds a physician's recommendation for medical marijuana for irritable bowel syndrome. Published: August 23, 2000Source: Auburn Journal (CA)Copyright: 2000 The Auburn JournalContact: Jessica Towhey: jessicat goldcountrymedia.comAddress: 1030 High St., Auburn, CA 95603Website: http://www.auburnjournal.com/Related Articles & Web Site:The Kubby Fileshttp://www.kubby.org/Pot Trial To Begin Tuesday http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6734.shtmlCannabisNews Search - Kubbyhttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=KubbyCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by MikeEEEEE on August 23, 2000 at 19:05:09 PT
Back in their face
kaptinemo, theres an old saying, what comes around goes around, the anti's are getting theirs now, they're losing!!!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on August 23, 2000 at 18:12:01 PT:
Sorry for the confusion
Nope, I didn't meant to imply that the defense lawyer was the 'heavy'. But the statement he made served to illustrate something that I felt needed 'fleshing out'.Consider: the (public) rationale for cannabis prohibition was the supposed maniacal violence on the part of cannabis users. Smoke a joint and presto! one instant axe murderer.But who is committing the violence? By and large, it is not the cannabis user who harms or kills, but the very State that seeks to 'protect' society from us. In short, our response can be said, in the main, to have been downright pacifistic.Which is why cops like to hassle and bust us... even kill us. Just look at the treatment meted out to almost every cop who has killed an unarmed cannabis user. Are any of them on Death Row? Nope. Are any of them serving life sentences? None I've heard of. Have any of them served *any* time for killing us? Maybe...in Federal country-club prisons like Allentown, perhaps. Many of them have received little more than a slap on the wrist and leave-without-pay... and then are re-instated. We are easy prey, yet we are not the ones causing the pain and suffering. But as usual, with an almost British gift for understatement, we make light of this atrocity as 'violent responses' as if this was a debating society engaged in genteel discourse. Yes, the 'responses' from the antis have indeed been 'violent'. In the worst way possible. Lucky for them we haven't returned the favors.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Tim Stone on August 23, 2000 at 14:30:31 PT
Um, kaptinemo
'And the issue of medical marijuana, under which auspices the Kubbys claim to have grown their 265plants, brings out what Nick termed as "violent responses" from both sides of the issue.'(actual quote)'Violent responses'. Like the 'violent responses' shown my the US Marines to Esequiel Hernandez?Or the violent responses shown by police towards Ismael Mena? Donald Scott? Patrick Dorismond?Like the violent response by judicial decree that killed Peter MCwilliams? (kaptinemo's response)Um, are you just venting - perfectly understandable - or is there a communication glitch in the above? Mr. Nick, as I read the above article, is the defense lawyer, representing the Kubbys, arguing on their behalf. He's not the Opposition. I suspect you knew that and it's just me that's a little mixed up by your response that sounds like it's making Nick out as the Heavy.Probably just venting, I'll bet, given your usual rigor. :) 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on August 23, 2000 at 10:20:54 PT:
Ostensible impartiality
'Acknowledging the charges facing Steven and Michele Kubby are more substantial than a run-of-the-mill drug case, a judge ruled on Tuesday to allow attorneys to poll potential jurors on their bias toward marijuana being used for medicinal purposes.'Biases *towards* use, huh? *Towards*? How about *against*? I sincerely hope they are polling for those, as well.'And the issue of medical marijuana, under which auspices the Kubbys claim to have grown their 265 plants, brings out what Nick termed as "violent responses" from both sides of the issue.''Violent responses'. Like the 'violent responses' shown my the US Marines to Esequiel Hernandez? Or the violent responses shown by police towards Ismael Mena? Donald Scott? Patrick Dorismond? Like the violent response by judicial decree that killed Peter MCwilliams? (Don't tell me that it's different if you used a gun; McWilliams was killed with malice aforethought no differently than if you had cut his throat; the only difference was that the murderers wore police uniforms, three-piece suits and judge's robes, in the decorum of a court, and hid behind an interpretation of a law that, as clear as it is, requires NONE. Prop215 makes no mention of limits on the number of plants that may be grown; any interpretation on that is purely arbitrary and therefore moot. Not to mention, illegally thwarting the spirit of the law by ignoring the letter of the law.)You know, it's a bloody good thing we cannabis users are not prone to 'violent responses'. There might be less murderers, tyrannical judges, grasping, power-hungry bureaucrats, etc. Pity we're not as bloodthirsty as our opponents.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by observer on August 23, 2000 at 10:05:10 PT
Remember FIJA!
http://www.FIJA.orgThe Fully Informed Jury Association. 1-800-TEL-JURY and 1-800-TELL-JURY . People have been known to blanket car windshields with FIJA info during jury selection time...Remember: If called for jury duty, some recommend revealing as little as possible to the jury-riggers, and recommend definitely not admitting to knowing anything about a) jury rights, b) medical mj, legalization etc., c) knowledge of penalties. They recommend acting like a slightly bored, resonable, unbiased person. When you're on the jury, keep in mind that, contrary to the judge's (rigging) instructions, you are the judge of the law, as well as whether a specific act happened. If someone clearly did the crime, but you, personally, don't like that law, you may simply vote "not guilty", and tell the other jurors that you don't care what they think, you're going to stand your ground and vote not guilty. (But it is always better if you can persuade other jurors to vote not guilty too! Sends "a message.") You don't have to explain anything to anyone, not even the judge. Respectfully say nothing more than you voted your conscience. Judge, DA, and others may try to intimidate you, but they will lose. Judges and DAs don't want you to even know about your ancient right to vote as you dang well please on a jury. This is part of English Common Law, and applies to jurors in the UK, NZ, Australia and Canada, as well as USA. See http://www.FIJA.org for more. 
Laura Kriho jury saga ... FIJA works!
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


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