Pubdate: Thu, 20 Feb 2003
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2003 The Sacramento Bee
Contact:  http://www.sacbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/376
Author: Chris Gray

JUSTICE UP IN SMOKE

Re "Jurors regret pot verdict" (Feb. 4) and "Pot case jurors call for new 
trial" (Feb. 5): It looks as if the jurors got hoodwinked. Apparently, it's 
a fairer trial if the judge suppresses evidence that the defendant was 
deputized by the city of Oakland to provide pot for medicinal purposes. 
Since it's a federal court, it apparently doesn't matter that growing pot 
for medicinal purposes is legal in California under Proposition 215.

I could see the prosecutor wanting to suppress that kind of information 
because, of course, he wants to convict. But the judge should be more 
interested in a fair trial, not in convicting.

If one wants to argue that the defendant was growing more than was allowed 
under Proposition 215, go ahead and argue that, but for heaven's sake, 
don't hide the fact that he was growing at least some of it under the 
auspices of the city of Oakland.

- - Chris Gray, Woodland
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom