T
The420Guy
Guest
In a verdict that could change the way prosecutors handle medical marijuana
cases, a Santa Rosa man was acquitted Monday of charges that he had more
pot than necessary for his medical needs.
Both sides agreed that the acquittal of Alan MacFarlane of felony
cultivation could help establish standards for how many plants medical
marijuana patients can grow.
"It will help us actually," Sonoma County District Attorney Mike Mullins
said. "Where the line will be drawn, I can't say."
Defense attorney Sandy Feinland called the verdict "a huge victory for the
compassionate use of marijuana in this county. It sent a message to law
enforcement to leave decisions regarding health care to a doctor and his
patient."
MacFarlane, 47, was the first medical marijuana patient to undergo a jury
trial in Sonoma County, and jurors rejected the prosecution's contention
that he was growing much more than he needed for himself.
MacFarlane, on trial for two weeks, had 73 plants seized by a county drug
task force in May 1999. Thirty-six plants were confiscated three months later.
Jurors heard widely divergent estimates of what the plants would yield for
MacFarlane, who had approval from his doctor to smoke marijuana to deal
with chronic pain related to the removal of his cancerous thyroid 25 years ago.
The disabled Vietnam-era veteran said he uses about 21/2 ounces a week of
marijuana, by smoking and eating it.
Although some counties have guidelines as to the number of plants medical
marijuana patients can grow, most, like Sonoma County, do not.
Jury foreman Chad Gillease said the jury decided the amount MacFarlane's
plants would produce was somewhere between the amount estimated by
different cultivation experts for the defense and prosecution.
"It's a very gray area. Everyone struggled," he said. "We all wished that
people who work with medical marijuana, the district attorney and Sheriff's
Department would work together in the future to come to a common
understanding of yields and the appropriate medical use so individuals
don't have to go through this."
MacFarlane, a former combat law enforcement specialist in the Air Force,
put on his Disabled American Veteran cap as soon as he was acquitted and
saluted both the jury and Superior Court Judge Robert Boyd.
"I salute this court and the Constitution. Hurrah," he said.
Outside court, he brushed back tears, saying, "I can wear my medals with
pride now."
"We need a medical marijuana policy now," he said. "The law has been
defined. People spoke four years ago and they spoke today. I hope it's loud
and clear."
He said "this has to be a repudiation for Mr. Mullins and the Sonoma County
narcotics department."
Mullins blamed ambiguities in the voter-approved 1996 state ballot
initiative allowing medical marijuana. He also denied MacFarlane was
harassed, as the defense contended.
"It's the difficulty in the statute and enforcement. There is no bright
line," Mullins said.
"It requires us to look to the community in an attempt to set an
appropriate standard," he said. "Normally you have the statute set a
standard and wouldn't have to go through this laborious process of trial
and error."
Mullins said that "given the lack of clarity of the statute, I'm not
surprised at the verdict."
Steve Spiegelman, co-defense attorney, noted MacFarlane could have taken a
plea bargain and gotten out of the case "with a slap on the hand" but
instead chose to fight.
The attorneys said it would ordinarily be very expensive and time-consuming
to fight the cultivation charges, but they essentially worked for free on
the case.
"I hope other patients will not have to go through what Alan went through,"
Spiegelman said.
Feinland said MacFarlane not only avoided a potential prison sentence if he
had been convicted, but the verdict was a victory because "the jury focused
on more than the sheer number of plants and looked at how much the plants
would actually yield."
Medical marijuana advocates say it is difficult to set a standard based on
the number of plants alone because some people are much more experienced in
cultivation and can get a lot more from the same number of plants. And some
patients require much less marijuana than others depending on their medical
problems.
Both Mullins and medicinal marijuana advocates mentioned a proposed garden
review team that is being considered to evaluate the pot plants grown by
patients and determine if it is within their needs. The team would be
composed of a member of law enforcement, possibly someone from public
health, and a marijuana advocate knowledgeable in crop yield.
During the trial, the defense presented an expert who said MacFarlane's
first crop would have yielded about two to three pounds of manicured buds
and his second crop about a pound more than that.
In contrast, a sheriff's detective initially estimated the first crop could
have produced 30 to 60 pounds and the second crop even more because some of
the plants were as tall as six feet.
But another sheriff's drug officer who qualified as an expert estimated a
much smaller amount than his colleague, saying the first crop would have
produced about 15 pounds and the second a little less.
One juror, Nina Van Sweden of Petaluma, said that during the day-and-a-half
deliberations "we did some real numbers crunching in there."
She said the case "put us in a position of having to make law. I'm not
comfortable with that. It's not clearly enunciated. You don't have any
guidelines for amounts."
She said that initially when she saw the photos of MacFarlane's plants she
thought, "Good, Lord, is he supplying all Sonoma County?" But she said she
and other jurors learned how yields can vary enormously and there are no
guarantees as to what a garden will produce.
The jury also rejected a charge that MacFarlane possessed a small amount of
hallucinogenic mushrooms, saying there was no proof whether there was a
usable amount.
Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
Pubdate: Tue, 30 Jan 2001
Source: Press Democrat, The (CA)
Copyright: 2001 The Press Democrat
Contact: letters@pressdemo.com
Address: Letters Editor, P. O. Box 569, Santa Rosa CA 95402
Fax: (707) 521-5305
Feedback: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/letform.html
Website: Home, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Bay Area Newspaper, CA news
Forum: Home, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Bay Area Newspaper, CA news
Author: Clark Mason, The Press Democrat
Related: MapInc
cases, a Santa Rosa man was acquitted Monday of charges that he had more
pot than necessary for his medical needs.
Both sides agreed that the acquittal of Alan MacFarlane of felony
cultivation could help establish standards for how many plants medical
marijuana patients can grow.
"It will help us actually," Sonoma County District Attorney Mike Mullins
said. "Where the line will be drawn, I can't say."
Defense attorney Sandy Feinland called the verdict "a huge victory for the
compassionate use of marijuana in this county. It sent a message to law
enforcement to leave decisions regarding health care to a doctor and his
patient."
MacFarlane, 47, was the first medical marijuana patient to undergo a jury
trial in Sonoma County, and jurors rejected the prosecution's contention
that he was growing much more than he needed for himself.
MacFarlane, on trial for two weeks, had 73 plants seized by a county drug
task force in May 1999. Thirty-six plants were confiscated three months later.
Jurors heard widely divergent estimates of what the plants would yield for
MacFarlane, who had approval from his doctor to smoke marijuana to deal
with chronic pain related to the removal of his cancerous thyroid 25 years ago.
The disabled Vietnam-era veteran said he uses about 21/2 ounces a week of
marijuana, by smoking and eating it.
Although some counties have guidelines as to the number of plants medical
marijuana patients can grow, most, like Sonoma County, do not.
Jury foreman Chad Gillease said the jury decided the amount MacFarlane's
plants would produce was somewhere between the amount estimated by
different cultivation experts for the defense and prosecution.
"It's a very gray area. Everyone struggled," he said. "We all wished that
people who work with medical marijuana, the district attorney and Sheriff's
Department would work together in the future to come to a common
understanding of yields and the appropriate medical use so individuals
don't have to go through this."
MacFarlane, a former combat law enforcement specialist in the Air Force,
put on his Disabled American Veteran cap as soon as he was acquitted and
saluted both the jury and Superior Court Judge Robert Boyd.
"I salute this court and the Constitution. Hurrah," he said.
Outside court, he brushed back tears, saying, "I can wear my medals with
pride now."
"We need a medical marijuana policy now," he said. "The law has been
defined. People spoke four years ago and they spoke today. I hope it's loud
and clear."
He said "this has to be a repudiation for Mr. Mullins and the Sonoma County
narcotics department."
Mullins blamed ambiguities in the voter-approved 1996 state ballot
initiative allowing medical marijuana. He also denied MacFarlane was
harassed, as the defense contended.
"It's the difficulty in the statute and enforcement. There is no bright
line," Mullins said.
"It requires us to look to the community in an attempt to set an
appropriate standard," he said. "Normally you have the statute set a
standard and wouldn't have to go through this laborious process of trial
and error."
Mullins said that "given the lack of clarity of the statute, I'm not
surprised at the verdict."
Steve Spiegelman, co-defense attorney, noted MacFarlane could have taken a
plea bargain and gotten out of the case "with a slap on the hand" but
instead chose to fight.
The attorneys said it would ordinarily be very expensive and time-consuming
to fight the cultivation charges, but they essentially worked for free on
the case.
"I hope other patients will not have to go through what Alan went through,"
Spiegelman said.
Feinland said MacFarlane not only avoided a potential prison sentence if he
had been convicted, but the verdict was a victory because "the jury focused
on more than the sheer number of plants and looked at how much the plants
would actually yield."
Medical marijuana advocates say it is difficult to set a standard based on
the number of plants alone because some people are much more experienced in
cultivation and can get a lot more from the same number of plants. And some
patients require much less marijuana than others depending on their medical
problems.
Both Mullins and medicinal marijuana advocates mentioned a proposed garden
review team that is being considered to evaluate the pot plants grown by
patients and determine if it is within their needs. The team would be
composed of a member of law enforcement, possibly someone from public
health, and a marijuana advocate knowledgeable in crop yield.
During the trial, the defense presented an expert who said MacFarlane's
first crop would have yielded about two to three pounds of manicured buds
and his second crop about a pound more than that.
In contrast, a sheriff's detective initially estimated the first crop could
have produced 30 to 60 pounds and the second crop even more because some of
the plants were as tall as six feet.
But another sheriff's drug officer who qualified as an expert estimated a
much smaller amount than his colleague, saying the first crop would have
produced about 15 pounds and the second a little less.
One juror, Nina Van Sweden of Petaluma, said that during the day-and-a-half
deliberations "we did some real numbers crunching in there."
She said the case "put us in a position of having to make law. I'm not
comfortable with that. It's not clearly enunciated. You don't have any
guidelines for amounts."
She said that initially when she saw the photos of MacFarlane's plants she
thought, "Good, Lord, is he supplying all Sonoma County?" But she said she
and other jurors learned how yields can vary enormously and there are no
guarantees as to what a garden will produce.
The jury also rejected a charge that MacFarlane possessed a small amount of
hallucinogenic mushrooms, saying there was no proof whether there was a
usable amount.
Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
Pubdate: Tue, 30 Jan 2001
Source: Press Democrat, The (CA)
Copyright: 2001 The Press Democrat
Contact: letters@pressdemo.com
Address: Letters Editor, P. O. Box 569, Santa Rosa CA 95402
Fax: (707) 521-5305
Feedback: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/letform.html
Website: Home, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Bay Area Newspaper, CA news
Forum: Home, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Bay Area Newspaper, CA news
Author: Clark Mason, The Press Democrat
Related: MapInc