Posted on 01/13/2003 12:09:56 PM PST by MrLeRoy
LOS ANGELES The only medical-marijuana case to end in conviction in Long Beach Superior Court has been overturned on appeal, and prosecutors have not yet decided whether to retry the case.
Marie Rutledge was charged last year with possessing marijuana in her car but claimed it was medically prescribed to treat her asthma, muscle spasms and migraine headaches. Her Long Beach jury disagreed, finding her guilty of cultivating marijuana, possession of marijuana and public intoxication.
After reviewing the case and hearing oral arguments in Los Angeles last month, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict based on a recent California Supreme Court decision that lowers the defendant's burden of proof in such cases.
The Supreme Court case, People v. Mower, states that "the defendant should be required merely to raise a reasonable doubt as to those (underlying) facts rather than to prove them by a preponderance of the evidence.'
The court stated that Rutledge's jurors may have returned a different verdict had they been instructed properly. For example, the fact that Rutledge introduced evidence of her maladies may have been enough to raise reasonable doubt, the court found.
Rutledge is one of four people charged in Long Beach with marijuana possession but who claim they are exempt from prosecution under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Two of those cases were ultimately dismissed, and one has yet to be tried.
Allen Fields, who runs the Long Beach branch of the Los Angeles district attorney's office, said he hasn't yet decided whether to retry the Rutledge case or dismiss it.
"I haven't seen the appeal,' he said Friday. "We'll take a look at it and decide what to do.'
Deputy Public Defender Leslie Allenby, who represented Rutledge during her trial, said she was pleased by the decision and hoped it would end the case.
"It's the right result,' she said. "I do hope that they choose not to litigate it again because it's much ado about nothing.'
Attorney J. David Nick, who filed the appeal, also had argued that Long Beach prosecutors committed prosecutorial misconduct when they suggested that Rutledge's doctor might subject himself to prosecution if he testified on her behalf. The doctor ultimately asserted the Fifth and refused to testify.
The Court of Appeal rendered no opinion on that matter, however, saying such a thing was "unlikely to recur at any new trial.'
"The doctor ultimately asserted the Fifth and refused to testify."
Smart move. Also, tells you everything you need to know about this case. (Marijuana for asthma?)
MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS A JOKE!!!
Smart move. Also, tells you everything you need to know about this case.
Yes, it tells you that the War On Some Drugs is interfering with doctors' doing what they deem best for their patients' health.
(Marijuana for asthma?)
It's a vasodilator, like commonly prescribed asthma medications.
MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS A JOKE!!!
"there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief. [...] there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." - Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999), Institute of Medicine
Anytime someone tells me "this is all you need to know" about something, I immediatly start wondering what it is they think I don't need to know, and why.
"Until a non-smoked, rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting. One possible approach is to treat patients as n-of-1 clinical trials, in which patients are fully informed of their status as experimental subjects using a harmful drug delivery system, and in which their condition is closely monitored and documented under medical supervision, thereby increasing the knowledge base of the risks and benefits of marijuana use under such conditions."
-- Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999), Institute of Medicine
I wonder if the woman in the article was "fully informed of their status as experimental subjects using a harmful drug delivery system, and in which their condition is closely monitored and documented under medical supervision"?
What do you think, MrLeRoy?
Well, THC itself is a bronchodilator, but is that enough to compensate for the irritation induced by the tars, or for the inhibition of ciliary movement induced by the acetaldehyde?
Name one other commonly prescribed asthma medication which is smoked.
Nope---nothing in the surrounding text you cite modifies the meaning of the text I quoted.
I wonder if the woman in the article was "fully informed of their status as experimental subjects using a harmful drug delivery system, and in which their condition is closely monitored and documented under medical supervision"?
She was not an "experimental subject" but a patient (experminent was mentioned as "one possible approach"). I have no reason to doubt that she was fully informed of the harms of smoking and her condition was closely monitored and documented under medical supervision.
If marijuana is found to have medical benefits, certainly you don't care if the "delivery system" is other than smoking, do you? Or do you have a hidden agenda?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.