'Absurd' case? Prosecutors think not

St. Petersburg Times ^ | August 9, 2007 | Carrie Weimar

[Jabba the Nutt]

TAMPA - An appeals court called the case against Mark O'Hara "absurd" and "ridiculous," but the Hillsborough State Attorney's Office is refusing to drop charges against the 45-year-old Dunedin man.

O'Hara appeared before Hillsborough Circuit Judge Ronald Ficarrotta Wednesday morning, his first time in court since his release from prison July 25.

During the brief hearing, prosecutor Darrell Dirks indicated his office plans to pursue a second trial for O'Hara, who was accused of drug trafficking after authorities found 58 Vicodin pills in his bread truck. He had legal prescriptions for the drugs.

[Jabba the Nutt]

This case is a cost of the war on drugs. A bread delivery man has his entire life turned upside down. He got 67 days for his pot and 25 years for his legally prescribed Vicodin.

The proponents of drug prohibition never, ever look at the costs brought about by the prohibition. The War on Drugs is another liberal issue, that has been taken up by conservatives as one of their own without analyzing it. The War on Drugs is a government program aimed at creating a certain societal outcome. Results aren't measured. Results don't matter. Failure is a reason to spend more tax money. It's about the feelings of the supporters of the policy. It's about the good intentions of supporters.

Someone convince me that this isn't liberalism pure? William Buckley and Milton Friedman opposed drug laws since the early 60's. And I think this applies to most prescription drugs. Conservatives could support lower costs in medicine by eliminating prescription laws and add to the de-regulation of medical care that is the only way to lower costs, increase quality and availability.

[jeddavis]

In theory you’d like to legalize everything short of the Jeckyl/Hyde formulas like PCP and LSD. Nonetheless you’d be better off legalizing it all than doing what we’re doing. A hundred years ago there were no drug laws in America and no meaningful drug problems. Nobody should need to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.

[samtheman]

jurors weren't told that it is legal to possess the drug with a prescription

Where do they get these jurors? They have to be told that it's legal to possess a drug you have a prescription for? Do jurors routinely submit to lobotomies before taking their seat in the jury box?

[Red Badger]

You’re right, but you’re gonna get flambasted..........

[Gay State Conservative]

My God...please get off the soapbox about drug laws,will ya? And regarding this case...just because the guy had a prescription it doesn’t mean he wasn’t intending to distribute.People with legitimate health problems possessing legitimate prescriptions for narcotics sell their supply all the time.I personally saw it many times while working at a major “big city” hospital.

[coloradan]

Voir dire is the process by which everyone not smart enough to get out of jury duty altogether, but who nevertheless possess a few remaining brain cells, are evicted from the jury.

[coloradan]

In other words, let’s toss the presumption of innocence, simply assume suspects are guilty, and place the burden upon them to prove their innocence (if they can).

You might want to rethink your position, there.

[scan59]

What was he doing with that many pills outside of his legal prescription bottle? The things have a high street value, and are commonly abused. The war on drugs may have many negative effects on the community, but I figure this guy was selling his pills for a profit. I think the cops were correct this time.

[samtheman]

I’ve been up several times to go on a jury but never been picked. I’ve always been part of the first cut. I don’t know the reason and don’t have a theory. And I don’t believe I stand out in a crowd in any way.

[coloradan]

You probably possess a brain. Laywers can sense that questioning you ... they don’t want anyone who can think on their jury, because then their emotional pleas won’t work with you.

[mjrsgrlnMD]

The news story didn’t say anything about any evidence that this man was attempting to sell his drugs, just that they were in his truck and that he had a prescription for them. SOME people might sell legitimately presecribed meds, but you can’t infer that because SOME might, anyone who has drugs in his or her possession IS. That’s absolutely absurd. This case is a joke, and this prosecutor should be investigated...another case of a prosecutor run amok racking up wins and making a name for himself. This is really serious, and becoming systemic. Wait until it’s you or someone you care about being screwed over for nothing. Doesn’t it bother anyone that we deprive people of their liberty SO CASUALLY here in the “Land of the Free”?? It should.

[drb9]

Darrell Dirks is probably just trying to make the world forget about Mike Nifong by drawing fire to himself. Mission accomplished.

[Robert A Cook PE]

IF you wear a shirt - with a collar - you will probably be rejected by the defense.

If you wear a shirt, tie and slacks, you WILL be rejected by the defense.

If you are a woman wearing a business outfit or dress, you will be rejected by the defense as long as ANYONE in the jury pool is wearing bluejeans or T-shirt.

If you are a self-employed male, you will be rejected by the defense unless all women (both races) are all gone.

Government (union) employees of both sexes are always accepted BEFORE the self-employed, lower or middle management.

Engineers and doctors are ALWAYS rejected immediately.

[Gay State Conservative]

In other words, let’s toss the presumption of innocence, simply assume suspects are guilty, and place the burden upon them to prove their innocence (if they can).You might want to rethink your position, there.

In what little I've read about this case there's one thing,and *only* one thing,that suggests that he might have intended to distribute and that is that he had *fifty eight* pills with him.

If he was told to take,say,two tablets every four hours by the doctor who gave them to him then you'd expect him to be carrying six...or eight...or even ten with him for a long workday,not fifty eight.

And yes,it's true that that fact alone doesn't necessarily constitute sufficient proof of intent to distribute but I wonder what other evidence the prosecution had/has.

And I repeat to you....people with genuine medical conditions possessing legitimate prescriptions for narcotics *HAVE* been known to sell their stash.I've seen it.

[KeepUSfree]

I never keep my pills in the prescription jar. Should I go to jail for that???

[samtheman]

Interesting. Are you a lawyer?

[New Perspective]

I have never seen anyone advertising to hire a crack whore for secretarial work or any other position.

I am sure there will be many new productive (HIGH) members of society. Is this guy a productive member of society?

[geezerwheezer]

Nah....but I’ll bet he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express a night or two! :0 )

[samtheman]

another case of a prosecutor run amok racking up wins and making a name for himself

Unfortunately there is a lot of that going on. There has to be some way to reform the system to make prosecutors more accountable to the truth. A defense attorney deserves a large amount of leeway. Defense of client uber alles. But prosecutors shouldn't be out to "win cases" just for the sake of winning, but to determine actual crimes, their actual perpetrators, and make the actual perpetrators pay.

It's a tougher job, but they do have a lot more resources at their disposal, and they should be using them responsibly... or they should be out the door.