Pubdate: Thu, 19 Jan 2012
Source: New Times (San Luis Obispo, CA)
Copyright: 2012 New Times
Contact:  http://www.newtimesslo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1277
Author: Matt Fountain

D.A. DISMISSES DOOBIE DOZEN DEFENDANTS--FOR NOW

When 12 local medical marijuana providers were arrested in late 
December 2010, the then-head of the now-defunct SLO County Narcotics 
Task Force predicted that the "concrete proof" collected against them 
would lead to 12 full convictions.

But on Jan. 17, 2012-after more than a year of courtroom hearings and 
exhausting hours spent arguing over motions and jury instructions-the 
SLO County District Attorney's Office admitted it couldn't proceed 
with its cases against six of the nine remaining Doobie Dozen defendants.

As a result, Superior Court Judge Barry LaBarbera dismissed all 
charges against defendants Chris and Amy Austin, David and Valerie 
Hosking, Thomas Sandercock, and Steven Gordon. Charges filed against 
the various defendants ranged from possession of marijuana for sale 
to child endangerment.

As of press time, another defendant, Peter Miller, was scheduled to 
face a similar dismissal on Jan. 18.

Deputy District Attorney Craig Van Rooyen told New Times the 
prosecutors had previously made the decision to send the cases to 
state appellate court when it appeared the local court wasn't 
receptive to its interpretation of state medical marijuana laws. The 
appeal to the state may provide clarity on the law, he said.

The prosecution and defense had squared off for months over a set of 
jury instructions that, in the final version, laid out state medical 
marijuana law in simple terms that were favorable for the defense. 
Early on in the case, the District Attorney's Office unsuccessfully 
attempted to prohibit the defendants from using the words "medical 
marijuana" and "collectives." "It is the People's position given the 
court's ruling asserting that the collective defense should be 
[allowed], and that the court ruled that the jury would be given [the 
finalized instructions], that the People are unable to proceed to 
trial in these cases," Van Rooyen told LaBarbera.

If an appeal is made, the District Attorney's Office is required to 
appeal the court's ruling to the Second District Court of Appeals 
within 10 days. Should the district court favor the appeal, the cases 
could go back to a local judge.

"What a waste," said defendant Miller. "We could have been where 
we're at today over six months ago."

During the appeal process, which could take years to complete, law 
enforcement officials may hold onto the former defendants' 
confiscated possessions, including cash, bank accounts, computers, 
and medicinal marijuana. Defense attorney Patrick Fisher told New 
Times he plans to file motions to return his clients' possessions, 
but conceded it will be difficult.

"I expect another long process where we don't have anything for a 
couple months," Fisher said. "The marijuana probably won't be 
returned [since the cases are technically ongoing], but the bank 
accounts, I can't see a good reason why [prosecutors] need that. But 
the court will probably deny that."

He estimated the attention given to his clients' cases has helped to 
effectively end local law enforcement investigations of medical 
marijuana providers, but the long-term significance could come from 
the state if the case sets a legal precedent.

Following the dismissals, former defendants said the victory was 
bittersweet and added they would have liked to have gone to trial so 
they could get on with their lives.

"It's like a game of chess where you have your opponent in check 
mate, and they're like, 'No you don't,'" said former defendant David 
Hosking. "It's like this is one big game to [the prosecutors]."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom