Judge Keeps Tight Rein on Pot Trial (Judge takes over questioning of witness from the defense)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Jan. 31, 2003 | Bob Egelko

[Wolfie]

References to medical uses quickly squelched in federal court.

The Bay Area's first federal medical marijuana trial ended Thursday with a bizarre touch that symbolized the entire case: The judge took over questioning of a defense witness to make sure he didn't refer to the medical use of marijuana.

[Wolfie]

"Grounds for appeal" ping

[dead]

Boy this War on Drugs is really doing a bang up job on our rights.

Here just some of our rights being abused in this mock trial:

• The sixth (speedy trial, witnesses and accusations)
• The seventh (right for a jury trial)
• The tenth (the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people)

  Good going Woddies! Keep it up.

[robertpaulsen]

Grounds for appeal, indeed. Too bad the prosecution can't use them.

[robertpaulsen]

"But Prop. 215 sifted into the case, with demonstrations by taped-mouth supporters outside the courthouse, pretrial questioning of jurors about their views on the measure, and incessant defense efforts to slip words like "medical" and "patient" into questioning or testimony, which generally drew rebukes from Breyer."

"after defense lawyer Robert Eye made one of his numerous attempts to enter a forbidden area."

"when Eye urged jurors to use their "common sense of justice,"

"Rosenthal's supporters, who had packed the courtroom, groaned"

"U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer -- told jurors to disregard the reference."

But this is OK with you? You must have loved the OJ case, then. A real law and order type you are.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping. I could have sworn I was reading about the Milosevic tribunal.

[The FRugitive]

What happened to state's rights?

[Wolfie]

States Rights were strongly upheld in the good ol' days of Conservativism. But then the States had to go and get uppity, so THAT had to stop.

[dead]

A real law and order type you are.

Sure am. Strict constitutionalist.

You should read it sometime, particularly the tenth amendment.

[steplock]

We need a party that fits somewhere in between the Republican (semi-democrat party) and the Libertarian (almost anarchist party).

Warning! Religious Reference Follows:

The 10 Commandments worked great for thousands of years without any necessary add ons ... but I am NOT advocating a theocracy (far from it!)

[Hemingway's Ghost]

This is the first I've ever heard of a Judge taking over the questioning of a witness on the stand.

[Dane]

Huh I guess the majority of the people on this thread will not cite the 2001 Supreme Court case in which the court voted 8-0 that the Federal Government has the right to prosecute cases against "medical marijuana" clubs.

Good to see a Judge follow the law and should be lauded for his effort to follow the law.

[Wolfie]

They've been gunning for Rosenthal for decades. This is all about getting him, nothing more. One of the prosecution's star witnesses is a guy who is doing the same thing, even as we speak, that Ed is on trial for. The Feds gave him immunity to force him to testify against Ed. Rosenthal has just pissed off too many people by writing books and testifying as an expert witness for the defense in many cultivation trials over the years.

[DAnconia55]

Breyer cut him off and said, "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that is, for your duty to follow the law."

Blatent nonsense.

Judge just lied to the jury.

[Wolfie]

I know that, you know that, and Judge Breyer knows that. And the jury knowing it scares the robes off of idjits like Breyer.

[dead]

Huh I guess the majority of the people on this thread will not cite the 2001 Supreme Court case in which the court voted 8-0 that the Federal Government has the right to prosecute cases against "medical marijuana" clubs.

So the federal government applied the imprimatur of the federal government to sanction the federal government’s usurpation of rights that were never granted to the federal government?

They can because they can.

[PaxMacian]

" Oakland's endorsement of his work as a medical marijuana supplier"

Anyone wonder why they did not go after an entrapment defense?
Seems if a government albeit a state and city say you can do something and then gov't thugs in black masks take you away for doing that same thing it is entrapment.

[PaxMacian]

RE-LEGALIZE

[Wolfie]

It goes a lot further than that. Ed was basically contracted by the City of Oakland to grow the stuff. I wonder why the Feds aren't charging the city with conspiracy to manufacture?

[Roscoe]

Strict constitutionalist.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution mandates that federal law supersede state law where there is an outright conflict between such laws. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 (9 Wheat) U.S. 1, 210, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824); Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663, 666, 82 S. Ct. 1089, 8 L.Ed.2d 180 (1962); Industrial Truck Ass'n, Inc. v. Henry, 125 F.3d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1997) (state law is preempted "where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal requirements, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress"). Recognizing this basic principle of constitutional law, defendants do not contend that Proposition 215 supersedes federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Indeed, Proposition 215 on its face purports only to exempt certain patients and their primary caregivers from prosecution under certain California drug laws-it does not purport to exempt those patients and caregivers from the federal laws. One of the ballot arguments in favor of the initiative in fact states: "Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana simply because federal law prevents the sale of marijuana and a state initiative cannot overrule those laws." Peron, 59 Cal.App.4th at 1393, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 (quoting Ballot Pamphlet, Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen.Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996 p. 60)).

May 13, 1998 Order from the District Court