Medical Marijuana Patients Can't Bring Up Drug's Medical Use In Federal Trial

[Androidpk]

A family of medical marijuana patients in Washington state will not be able to defend themselves against drug trafficking charges by presenting evidence that their state-legal marijuana grow was for personal medical use.

"In regard to the medical marijuana evidence, I'm still persuaded that it will confuse the jury," U.S. District Judge Fred Van Sickle of the Eastern District of Washington said during a pretrial hearing teleconference on Monday. "I don't think medical marijuana evidence is relevant."

With Monday's ruling, the judge said that the defendants can't bring in any physical evidence that references medical marijuana use either and that Washington state law on medical marijuana can't be discussed before the jury.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/23/harvey-family-medical-marijuana_n_5523359.html


---
On top of all that BS is this kicker; Federal prosecutors argue that the presence of (legally owned) firearms shows the defendants were involved in drug trafficking.

Talk about a kangaroo court, this is just bogus.

[Latrinsorm]

It almost seems like Judge Van Sickle is intentionally creating grounds for appeal, although I don't see how a Supreme Court decision would be relevant and I'm sure the family would much rather just win the case ASAP.

[Androidpk]

It almost seems like Judge Van Sickle is intentionally creating grounds for appeal, although I don't see how a Supreme Court decision would be relevant and I'm sure the family would much rather just win the case ASAP.


I'm no lawyer but this just doesn't seem legal to me, denying the defendant their right to a fair trial. It also seems like the 10th amendment is being violated here.

[Dwaar]

This is just absurd. The fucking man just messing with people again. Everyone should be afforded a fair trial, and if part of their defense is the fact they require it for medical purposes... this is just nuts.

The gun thing, the damn Feds need to get half a brain. (If per the information, all the weapons are legal)

[Gelston]

It is due to it being in a federal court. Federally, it is illegal. State law is trumped.

[Dwaar]

It is due to it being in a federal court. Federally, it is illegal. State law is trumped.

Okay.. so I have this straight...

Washington legalized marijuana use?

Owning weapons is a legal right federally?

But, owning legal weapons while having legal pot isn't?

Honestly asking.. think I'm missing something about this story. Because otherwise, that would be like saying you can't own firearms if you also have liquor in the house, because even though liquor is legal, you may be selling it illegally? I'm lost....

[Tgo01]

But, owning legal weapons while having legal pot isn't?

As far as the federal government is concerned it wasn't legal pot.

[Tgo01]

While I think the federal government should butt out in instances where states have legalized marijuana I can't help but chuckle that the father, mother, son, son's wife and "family friend" all had medical conditions that required a medical marijuana prescription and that they were growing 70 plants for personal medical marijuana purposes.

[Dwaar]

While I think the federal government should butt out in instances where states have legalized marijuana I can't help but chuckle that the father, mother, son, son's wife and "family friend" all had medical conditions that required a medical marijuana prescription and that they were growing 70 plants for personal medical marijuana purposes.

Got your point on the first one Tg... because federally pot is illegal, but the state legalized it... god this is weird... so literally if the Federal Government wants to get rid of all guns... all they need to do is get all the states to legalize pot?

I have no idea on their medical status or if they were selling (though I agree it sounds fishy, and they probably were selling pot), but to rule that they can not use that as part of their defense if they so choose seems odd to me. If they have doctor's prescriptions and such for it, and the state makes it legal.. then I would think that line of defense should be open for a jury to decide.

Strange, strange case. Will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[Tgo01]

Got your point on the first one Tg... because federally pot is illegal, but the state legalized it... god this is weird... so literally if the Federal Government wants to get rid of all guns... all they need to do is get all the states to legalize pot?

The guns have nothing to do with this...well okay, they are saying the guns help prove that they were trafficking marijuana. Just the fact that they were growing marijuana is enough for the federal government to press charges against them.


but to rule that they can not use that as part of their defense if they so choose seems odd to me. If they have doctor's prescriptions and such for it, and the state makes it legal.. then I would think that line of defense should be open for a jury to decide.

As I said I think the federal government should butt out but the reason the judge isn't allowing it is because it's a federal crime to be in possession of any marijuana, for any reason.

It would be akin to being caught red handed on video footage that you robbed a liquor store but then trying to say you had a medical reason for robbing the liquor store as your defense.

[Dwaar]

It would be akin to being caught red handed on video footage that you robbed a liquor store but then trying to say you had a medical reason for robbing the liquor store as your defense.

There is one... by reason of insanity... medical condition... BOOYAH! All my Law&Order watching paying off.

[Gelston]

Okay.. so I have this straight...

Washington legalized marijuana use?

Owning weapons is a legal right federally?

But, owning legal weapons while having legal pot isn't?

Honestly asking.. think I'm missing something about this story. Because otherwise, that would be like saying you can't own firearms if you also have liquor in the house, because even though liquor is legal, you may be selling it illegally? I'm lost....

Yeah, as TGO stated, the weapons just helped them to arrive at a trafficking conclusion. It wouldn't be like having liquor in your house, because federally, liquor is legal. However, if you had an unlicensed still and moonshine and weapons, that is federally illegal and they'd probably be at the same juncture.

[Androidpk]

All five of them have doctors recommendations for medical use based on their conditions. The law states that each individual can grow up to 15 plants. That would be 75 plants total. They had 70. The feds say they were trafficking but the only proof they offer are the legally owned guns.

[Gelston]

All five of them have doctors recommendations for medical use based on their conditions. The law states that each individual can grow up to 15 plants. That would be 75 plants total. They had 70. The feds say they were trafficking but the only proof they offer are the legally owned guns.

And again, the Federal government doesn't care about the state's laws on the matter in a Federal court. It has 0 bearing. The DEA can hit you with trafficking for having over 1 plant. The big penalties start coming at over 50.

[Androidpk]

And again, the Federal government doesn't care about the state's laws on the matter in a Federal court. It has 0 bearing. The DEA can hit you with trafficking for having over 1 plant. The big penalties start coming at over 50.

I realize that. My whole issue with this is not being allowed to cite state law in their defense.

[Gelston]

I realize that. My whole issue with this is not being allowed to cite state law in their defense.

I don't see why it would matter. They aren't being prosecuted for violating a state law, they are being prosecuted for violating a federal law.

On top of that, state law being cited or not, I imagine all the jurors probably know about Washington's stance on marijuana.