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