Cannabis News Marijuana Policy Project
  Pot Case Put on Hold Again
Posted by FoM on March 12, 2002 at 09:11:32 PT
By Harold Kruger, Appeal-Democrat 
Source: Appeal-Democrat 

medical Doyle and Belinda Satterfield now have to wait until April 22 to find out if they will get their medical marijuana back. Judge James Curry set the new hearing date Monday to allow Doyle Satterfield's lawyer, Justin Scott, time to respond to legal arguments filed by Yuba County District Attorney Pat McGrath.

"Something tells me there has to be some evidentiary hearing to convince the court what appears to be contraband is not," said Curry.

The judge expressed some frustration about the medical marijuana situation.

"I personally wish state and federal law enforcement and folks who wrote initiatives got on the same dad-gum page," he said.

Curry invited anyone else interested in the medical marijuana issue to file an amicus brief, or friend of the court brief, in the Satterfields' case.

The Linda couple were arrested in August and charged with illegal marijuana cultivation. The charges were dropped in January.

Doyle Satterfield needs the marijuana for his insomnia and arthritis. His wife uses it because she has chemotherapy treatments for breast cancer.

"This law has been in effect for five years, and everybody's been ducking it," Scott said of Proposition 215, the medical marijuana initiative passed by voters in November 1996. "I don't think it's going to get ducked this time."

He vowed to take the Satterfields' case on appeal if their medicine isn't returned.

"This ought to be a patient-doctor issue," Scott said. "It ought to be private. The courts have no business in it. I think that's what the voters said.

"For some reason, it seems like the authorities don't want to follow the law. I guess they want to say they can go out and take people's legally possessed marijuana and destroy it and not give it back to them because of some vague law they can't cite."

Scott obtained a court order in early February, he said, to bar law enforcement from destroying the Satterfields' marijuana.

McGrath said Proposition 215's poor wording is causing the current problems.

"If the drafters of Proposition 215 had the foresight to think of returning seized marijuana that was later determined to be used under the Compassionate Use Act, they should have included it, but they didn't," he said. "Because they didn't, we're in a big, balled-up mess again."

Local law enforcement and judges, McGrath said, can't be put in the position of returning marijuana because it's considered contraband under federal statutes.

"Federal law creates a bogeyman for local law enforcement," he said.

But Scott said he's unaware of "any other law enforcement officer who's been put in jail because they returned it, or any other judge who's been impeached or put in jail because they returned it. I don't believe for a minute that the feds are gong to come in and do anything, or they would have already done it."

Note: Medical marijuana hearing pushed to April.

Source: Appeal-Democrat (CA)
Author: Harold Kruger, Appeal-Democrat
Published: Tuesday, March 12, 2002
Copyright: 2002 Appeal-Democrat
Website: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/
Contact: laura_nicholson@link.freedom.com

Related Articles & Web Site:

Medical Marijuana Information Links
http://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htm

Case Puts Law Enforcement in Bind
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12155.shtml

Judge Releases Defendant in Marijuana Case
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11803.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #3 posted by FoM on May 01, 2002 at 08:12:30 PT
News Brief from The Associated Press
Yuba County Sheriff Refuses Court Order to Return Medical Marijuana

Yuba County Sheriff Virginia Black defied a court order that she return 37 medical marijuana plants to a couple authorities seized the drugs from in August.

"The issue is I'm not going to commit a federal crime by giving away marijuana," Black said Tuesday.

So Doyle and Belinda Satterfield left the Yuba County Courthouse empty-handed, despite the Judge James Curry order.

"I can't in good conscience hand that marijuana over to the Satterfields," Black said. "I now have a state judge ordering me to commit a federal crime, and I have problems with that."

On Monday, Curry ordered that the marijuana seized from the Satterfields be returned. Black's position puts her at odds with the judge.

Justin Scott, the Satterfield's lawyer said he is considering suing Black or asking a judge to find her in contempt of court. Scott said he would give Black until Thursday to comply with the judge's order and return the plants.

Source: Associated Press
Wednesday, May 1, 2002
Copyright: 2002 Associated Press


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by FoM on March 12, 2002 at 20:00:42 PT
Jose
I couldn't find a web site for them but maybe if you email the paper. The email is in the source info they might be able to direct you.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #1 posted by Jose Melendez on March 12, 2002 at 09:57:31 PT:

Arrest Prohibition with TRUTH
Curry invited anyone else interested in the medical marijuana issue to file an amicus brief, or friend of the court brief, in the Satterfields' case.

How do I do that?

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on March 12, 2002 at 09:11:32