F this judge and F Iowa

I knew that Iowa had a straw poll. I didn't know it had a strawman.

 

Then maybe all matters of "how much is enough" should be left to whom exactly?

 

The law. Take possession off the books and the "how much" changes. I am not arguing what this guy 'should' be allowed to do. He and his family knowingly and willingly did what they did. Instead of going to buy a quarter bag, an ounce, or whatever the legal limit is considered personal use, they decided to turn their home into a pot farm.

The amount goes from misdemeanor to felony possession. This is the reality. One can try to defy reality but then look at the mess one can get into. It was a nice try to use cancer as a defense against distribution. Someone has to be the pioneer.

 

That does seem to be a bit overzealous on the prosecution's part.

I really think there's a sea change going on in terms of marijuana that I wouldn't have predicted just 5 years ago. Only yesterday I had a kid plead to a possession with intent charge and got probation that, because of his lack of record, can end with him having the charge eventually dismissed. While that, in and of itself, isn't unusual what was unusual was the judge's comments during sentencing. To be fair, this was a judge who runs a drug court so he doesn't necessarily see drug defendants as hardened criminals like some judges. On the other hand, he's certainly on the conservative end of the spectrum.

But back to the sentencing, he said something along the lines of, "I'm not saying this is how you want to spend the rest of your life, but if selling weed is your thing you might want to think about moving to Colorado or Washington and getting a license. And if that's what you want to do I'll approve transferring your probation there." Not a big thing, sure, but it's the first time I've heard him comment from the bench that maybe prosecuting somebody for selling marijuana might be sort of a waste of time.

 

The police arrest based on probable cause. The State's burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury decides if the State met that burden of proof. They do not have to do this based on what the law says. That is a misconception that the State tries to hammer home at every trial.

http://fija.org/



The Jury is the Law at trial. Like I said, the wheel chair, gown, blankets, and having to leave the court room were very emotional displays without using it as a defense. If the state offers up all of the weed and equipment at evidence and the defense cannot argue medicinal use as a defense, the he is in a tough situation. A jury could convict and still give probation. You just can't go out and just do what you fucking want unless you are willing to make the sacrifice. He can fight it and lose. He must have known that. He can be a reason why laws are changed. He can make THC oil available for future patients. He just can't set up shop in his home, break the law, and have it ignored. It must be tested.

 

This man and his family were found guilty. Sentencing on Aug 28. The article says that there is no probation for him since he served time for 2 prior drug convictions.

http://qctimes.com/news/local/crime...cle_5d4ada2b-1946-5fc2-9718-c1efd59777d8.html

 

a

I would think he would have a good chance to get his conviction reversed on appeal due to the judge's decision not to allow him to introduce medical evidence. The question is can somebody in his medical and financial condition afford to pay a lawyer good enough to win the case. If he has to use a public defender he is likely going to jail

 

I don't think his priors can, or were introduced. He can only be tried for the current charge. The sentencing phase does take into account priors. I think that was what the article was referring to. I do think his motive for doing what he did should have been allow in. The prosecution provides motive in trials.

The jury deliberated for 5 hours. There were some dissenting opinions in the jury room.