Pubdate: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 Source: Burlington County Times (NJ) Copyright: 2012 Calkins Newspapers. Inc. Contact: https://phillyburbs-dot-com.bloxcms-ny1.com/contact/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2128 Author: Danielle Camilli NJWEEDMAN TO BE RETRIED ON DRUG DISTRIBUTION IN OCTOBER MOUNT HOLLY -- The fate of medical marijuana patient NJWeedman will now be in the hands of a second Burlington County jury this fall after a Superior Court judge Tuesday morning denied the activist's motion for acquittal on a drug distribution charge stemming from a 2010 arrest. Ed Forchion, who claims dual residency in Pemberton Township and Los Angeles, is excited to get another day in court to bring his case before a new jury. He tried unsuccessfully to withdraw the motion for acquittal before Tuesday's hearing, but Judge Charles Delehey heard oral arguments anyway, saying "enough is enough of Mr. Forchion's nonsense." Forchion and his supporter's activism during the May trial, including placing pamphlets about jury nullification on cars parked in the jury parking lot and giving an interview within earshot of a deliberating juror, did not go unnoticed by the judge, who chided the defendant for his "persistent attempt to somehow scuttle the judicial process." On Tuesday, Delehey denied the motion. He said despite his opinion that a new trial is unlikely to produce a different outcome, specifically a verdict, the state's evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction and a new trial is warranted. Delehey scheduled jury selection to begin Oct. 10. Forchion, who faces up to five to 10 years if convicted, was first tried last May with a Burlington County jury convicting him of possession of marijuana. The panel was split 7 to 5 in favor of acquittal on the more serious distribution charge and could not reach a unanimous verdict. Delehey declared a mistrial on that count and Assistant Deputy Public Defender Donald Ackerman, who assisted Forchion who represented himself at trial, filed the motion for acquittal. Forchion, however, wanted another trial, opposing his own attorney's motion. Forchion, who returned to California after his May trial, did not attend Tuesday's hearing. He was frustrated when the judge did not allow him to attend via telephone, but pleased with the outcome. "We as Americans are taught when accused we have a right to a trial, but in reality the system does everything it can to prevent a citizen from going to trial," Forchion said. "The Goliath of government is always bullying citizens into plea bargains etc. or dismissing the case after destroying the citizen's life. I'm different. I want a trial." He is believed to be the first defendant in the state to be allowed to present his choice of medical marijuana as treatment as a defense to the charges. Forchion was permitted to tell jurors he was a licensed medical-marijuana user in California and explain his use of the drug to treat painful bone tumors. He was banned from presenting evidence about New Jersey medical marijuana law. New Jersey's law was passed a few months before Forchion's arrest, but the defendant would not have been a legal user under that law. Despite its passage two years ago, the state has yet to dispense any medical marijuana and the law does not recognize licensed users from other states. Qualified patients in New Jersey may register for identification cards for the New Jersey program now, but Forchion and other activists have argued the state law is too restrictive. In court Tuesday, Ackerman argued that the state had very little evidence of distribution, arguing that its expert witness even admitted at trial he would not be "surprised" if under the facts of the case Forchion's 1-pound brick of pot found during a April 1 traffic store on Route 38 in Mount Holly was for his personal use. He argued that the expert's opinion that Forchion could be a mid-level dealer based on the amount of cash he had and the sheer volume of the marijuana, were not based on the facts of the case and some of his other testimony about Columbian drug cartels was highly prejudicial. The judge said he will be "very cautious" in the next trial to limit any of the expert's "rambling dissertations." Ackerman also argued that with only one charge to consider, the more serious distribution, it eliminates the jury coming to a "compromise position," which could be unfair to Forchion. Assistant Prosecutor Mike Luciano rejected that argument, saying the first jury could have acquitted the defendant if it wanted a compromise. "He did not walk and five were ready to convict," he said. "aE&The state does have a strong interest in the case, was diligent and is entitled to try the case again." - --- MAP posted-by: Matt