Cannabis News Protecting Patients Access to Medical Marijuana
  Issue in 2 Death Sentences: Judge's Drug Use
Posted by CN Staff on May 16, 2002 at 07:41:40 PT
By Adam Liptak 
Source: New York Times 

justice The judge bought marijuana by mail. He paid with a cashier's check, and he used the office stationery. The envelope bore a handsome imprint: "Philip Marquardt, Superior Court Judge, Phoenix, Arizona."

Mr. Marquardt lost that job and his license to practice law after his second marijuana conviction, in 1991, and he is today a retired ski instructor in Carefree, just north of here. Now, two men he sentenced to death in the 1980's are asking courts to look into whether his use of marijuana deprived them of a fair trial.

Their assertions test attitudes about whether using drugs while not working should be of concern in the workplace, about how much extra scrutiny is warranted in death penalty cases and about the limits of judicial privacy. Judges and prosecutors worry that allowing criminal defendants to examine the human element in the judicial process will have enormous consequences.

"There is a floodgate that can be opened here," said Robert L. Ellman, an Arizona assistant attorney general.

When a federal appeals court ordered a hearing to consider evidence about the assertions of one of the prisoners, Warren Summerlin, the majority quoted Shakespeare:

He who the sword of heaven will bear should be as holy as severe.

The dissenting judge on the three-judge panel, Alex Kozinski, noted that there was no proof that Judge Marquardt's drug use had affected his performance on the bench, and he said the decision invited intrusion into judges' personal lives.

"Judges rightly expect to have medical histories, family tragedies, even occasional overindulgences in intoxicating substances, remain private," Judge Kozinksi wrote.

John Pressley Todd, another assistant attorney general, said there was no principle to distinguish questions about Judge Marquardt's marijuana use from inquiries into all sorts of matters that might influence judicial decision making.

"If this is a legitimate inquiry," Mr. Todd said, "what about a divorce or loss of a child?"

Steven Lubet, a professor at Northwestern University Law School, said unwarranted intrusions were a real danger.

"Desperate defendants should not be allowed to rummage through judges' personal lives," Professor Lubet said.

But he disagreed about the assertions involving Judge Marquardt, saying, "Wherever the line is, it is somewhere well short of a double conviction for illegal drugs."

Mr. Marquardt conceded in an interview that he used marijuana regularly in the years in which he sentenced the two men to death. Sipping a soft drink by the pool at a golf resort outside town, Mr. Marquardt talked on Monday about his past and its significance for the men he sentenced to death. He acknowledged once having had a taste for the fast life, "but it never carried onto the bench," he said.

Mr. Marquardt, 68, who spent 20 years on the bench, is fit and vigorous, and he was in a reflective mood. "By the very nature of marijuana you don't wake up drugged up or glazed over," he said. "I walked into the courtroom clearheaded, clear-eyed and absolutely in control of my intellectual abilities."

Richard Michael Rossi, 54, whom Mr. Marquardt sentenced to death in 1988, speaking by phone from death ow in Arizona State Prison, said of the judge: "There is a lot of irony here. We both had addiction problems. I acknowledged mine. He didn't acknowledge his."

At his sentencing hearing for killing a man in a dispute over the sale of a typewriter in 1983, Mr. Rossi submitted a doctor's report seeking leniency based on his cocaine addiction. But Judge Marquardt took the opposite view at the court hearing, saying, "I want it to be clear that this court finds that the cocaine addiction does not negate the factors of the cruel, heinous or depraved factors."

Three years later, Judge Marquardt hired Mr. Rossi's doctor to prepare a report in connection with his own sentencing on drug charges, seeking leniency on the basis of marijuana addiction. He now regretted that, Mr. Marquardt said; "marijuana is just not that addictive."

In addition to agreeing to resign his judgeship, Mr. Marquardt was sentenced to probation, fined $20,000 and forced to give up some of his retirement benefits. For his first offense, which was in 1988, a month after Mr. Rossi's hearing, Mr. Marquardt was given a suspended sentence. He was later suspended from the bench without pay for a year by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Mr. Marquardt said he did not remember Mr. Rossi, but he said he had no doubt that the death penalty was warranted. "These guys have sentenced themselves," he said.

In Arizona, judges rather than juries decide whether defendants convicted of capital crimes should be sentenced to death. The United States Supreme Court will soon decide whether that is constitutional, and the appeals court decision about Mr. Marquardt's drug use has been withdrawn while the parties wait to see how the Supreme Court will rule on that separate issue.

Judge Marquardt also decided the fate of Mr. Summerlin, who was convicted of sexually assaulting and then killing a debt collector in 1981. On a scorching Friday in the summer of 1982, Judge Marquardt heard final arguments on whether Mr. Summerlin should be put to death, and, he said, "over the weekend."

Two decades later, the appeals court focused on that comment. The majority was troubled, it wrote, "by the fact that Judge Marquardt deliberated and made the key life or death decisions in this case `over the weekend,' while not on the bench or on public view."

Mr. Marquardt said he did not recall that particular weekend, but added, "I certainly haven't admitted using marijuana on the bench or during my deliberations."

Judge Kozinski wrote that "no doubt hundreds" of convicted criminals might challenge the fairness of their trials before the former judge. While Mr. Marquardt defended his conduct on the bench, he said he believed an inquiry into it was appropriate: "When you have initial proof, as Summerlin does, that the judge who sentenced him used drugs, I think that triggers an entitlement to ask questions."

Whether justice would be served by such questioning turns in large part on how marijuana use is viewed. The chronic abuse of marijuana "renders smart people average and average people stupid," the appellate court majority wrote.

"If it is against the law to drive a vehicle under the influence of marijuana," the majority said, "surely it must be at least equally offensive to allow a judge in a similar condition to preside over a capital trial."

Judge Kozinski wrote that Mr. Summerlin should have offered specific evidence of on-the-job intoxication before the court ordered a hearing. He gave several examples of possible proof. One was a statement by a courtroom observer that the judge fell asleep in court.

Mr. Rossi, whose appeal is pending before the same court, said he had offered such proof. Judge Marquardt had not presided over Mr. Rossi's trial, but it fell to the judge to resentence him in 1988 after the Arizona Supreme Court reversed a previous death sentence. The hearing started at 11:30 a.m., paused at noon for a two-hour break and ended at 4:40.

Mary Durand, an investigator who was a member of Mr. Rossi's defense team and was at the hearing, said Judge Marquardt slept through much of it. "This was not a two-minute nod-off after lunch," Ms. Durand said. "This was slumber." She estimated that the judge slept for 30 minutes at one point, woke up and fell asleep again. She took notes at the hearing. They concluded, "Pity Marquardt slept thru most of this!"

Mr. Ellman, who represents the state in Mr. Rossi's appeal, has reviewed the transcript of the hearing. He said there was no support in it for Ms. Durand's assertion. "The judge appears to be very coherent and tracking the evidence accurately," Mr. Ellman said.

Mr. Rossi recalled his frustration. He said he and Ms. Durand cleared their throats loudly, banged pens on the table and tried to get the court clerk's attention, all to no avail.

Mr. Rossi said he deserved a hearing to examine whether marijuana played any role in his death sentence.

In his dissent in the Summerlin case, Judge Kozinski questioned just what such a hearing might show.

"Even if Judge Marquardt did think about Summerlin while under the influence of marijuana, it's not clear why this would taint his decision," he wrote.

"Does having a fleeting thought on a subject while intoxicated then vitiate all of a judge's sober deliberations? Or is the test whether the judge actually made up his mind under the influence? How would one know?"

Newshawk: Nicholas Thimmesch II - http://www.norml.org/
Source: New York Times (NY)
Author: Adam Liptak
Published: May 16, 2002
Copyright: 2002 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/

CannabisNews Justice Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/justice.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #7 posted by PAUL PETERSON on May 16, 2002 at 16:16:21 PT:

PHILLIP MARQUARDT
People, this is truly an incredible day. We have a grammy winning singer busted with 10 joints, and they take her word that she won't leave town without it (coming back to court), the Libertarians tell the cops to apologize (with a straight face, no less), the New York mayor smiles from the buses, while his cops are told to frown to all the passing motorists (I'm guessing they should be more than a little confused by now), George Bush is getting dissed about knowing ahead of time about the 911 fiasco (sounds like what FDR knew ahead of Pearl Harbor and let it happen, so he could go to war or something-TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT OR WHAT?), Canada is getting dissed about being pissed about too much good herb, and the grower is boiling over about having his weed spoken of like it is the DEA shit they are talking about being too weak to make it to a kindergarden smokeout, Robin Prosser is waiting for someone to even talk about these things so she can feel like eating again, the guy that blew up mailboxes because he got caught with a pipe or something gets all the press (and hurt some people violently and I don't like that one bit, of course-I even offered to help the FBI profile the guy to help catch him), and last but not least, THIS JUDGE GUY MADE THE NEW YORK TIMES WITH A POT STORY FINALLY, FINELY.

Last summer I could go on line once a month and figure I got all the news in a timely fashion. Now we have arrived, where we need a morning edition and a nightly recap, with dozens of stories, and last but not least JOHN WALTERS HAS ADMITTED THAT THOSE JUST SAY NO STORIES JUST DON'T CUT IT AND ARE A WASTE OF MONEY (did I hear that right?).

As more recap, we got a 9th Circuit case coming down where the DEA will be dissed for dissing doctors that use their FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS TO TREAT PATIENTS LIKE PATIENTS, the 9th Circuit will diss the DEA for dissing HEMP SEED PRODUCTS which have less to piss about than those popping fresh poppy seed pushovers, the 9th Circuit has already dissed those Idaho Potato people for dissing the guy that drove too good on pot, that Oregon judge dissed JOHN ASHCROFT for crying about people having a right to decide when to decide when to call it quits, the DC feds decided the DC fillibusters gotta shut up about shutting up valid voter rights to choose (that was a good one, wasn't it?), and I'm just waiting for ASA to get charged for violating the constitution by violating the "seperation of powers" thingy, by threatening to diss Maryland for thinking about patients' rights by even thinking about passing a law "legalizing" pot (remember he went to the DC boys and told them his pet project, the DEA, that is, is there to COMBAT LEGALIZATION-can he really say he wants to "combat" a valid legislative effort? I'm thinkin he violated another law or something by that gaffe-can an exectutive officer threaten or cajole 1) the legislative branch-either the state brand or the beltway types or 2) be a government "lobbyist" at all?, let alone to say he would "combat" something validly debated and passed by the legislature? Am I the only one who sees this thing? (Remember, I'm not even a lawyer any more).

Oh

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by idbsne1 on May 16, 2002 at 13:24:03 PT
I just noticed something.....
THIS story made it to the New York Times?

Fricking propagandist antis....

idbsne1



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by el_toonces on May 16, 2002 at 12:45:39 PT:

Journal aritcle....
...for those who might be interested, the current issue of the Journal of Cognitive Liberties has an excellent discussion of this case and contrasts it with U.S. v. Patzer, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held a motorist stopped for a broken taillight could not be convicted of driving while under the influence because the prosecutor could show some abnormal eye movemetns (lateral gaze nystagmus, I assume), he coudl not prove that Mr. Patzer had smoked marijuana "to a degree which impairs ythe driver's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle..." as required under the appilcable Idaho statute.

Thus, the article concludes, it is legally permissibile under the reasoning of the majority in Summerlin (the Judge Marquardt case) to send a man to death while intoxicated as a judge, so long as the intoxication is via a LEGAL substance, which contrasts sharply with Patzer because in the latter the relevant factor is the intoxication and not its legality or illegality.

For more info about the Journal, check out www.alchemind.org.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on May 16, 2002 at 11:32:37 PT
How sick and sad is this?
Like children in an abusive family fighting each other instead of running from the hellish home they're trapped in together.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by WolfgangWylde on May 16, 2002 at 09:58:23 PT
Gak: No you don't!
The sad fact is, the judiciary looks upon the rest of us as rabble. The Supreme Court, which loves to talk about "druggie" schools, etc, only gave the thumbs down to drug testing once - in a case where to be applied to judges. They protect their own.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #2 posted by project419 on May 16, 2002 at 09:12:41 PT
ok...
"If it is against the law to drive a vehicle under the influence of marijuana," the majority said, "surely it must be at least equally offensive to allow a judge in a similar condition to preside over a capital trial."

it's illegal to do anything on marijuana you f*n idiot! it doesn't matter if your raking your yard with a joint in your mouth or you are driving around smoking some weed....either way your going to jail and they are going to give you a big fucking fine and rape your ass with lawyer fees..

so the point of this is...how are they going to prove that the judge was high while he was in court? There is no way a little pot outside of the courtroom would effect him at all....it's not all right for a judge to smoke weed on his own time but it's all right for him to come in and do his job when he is all hungover from drinking himself stupid from the night before...

if it's all right for George Bush Jr. to have his little indiscretion with cocaine...then how come average americans can't have their indiscretions?.. god bush...you hypocrite

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by gak on May 16, 2002 at 08:11:20 PT
wonderful quote
"Judges rightly expect to have medical histories, family tragedies, even occasional overindulgences in intoxicating substances, remain private," Judge Kozinksi wrote.

As American citizens, don't we have the same rights to indulgences in intoxicating substances...and shouldn't it remain private!!!!!!

[ 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 May 16, 2002 at 07:41:40