What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

People v. Jackson San Diego

J

JackTheGrower

I am reading from another Site a reference to a court case of People v. Jackson the verdict was in on Tue, December 1, 2009



My Personal thanks to 420Magizine.com For this post I am reposting here.
I admit I found little in the way of news about this case and I watch every day or two.. In my opinion this has not gotten the coverage other news does for some odd reason.

Anyway I asked at 420mag what the scope of this decision is since I am learning how to follow the court cases atm..
Is this just San Diego in scope or is it State wide? I'm asking here as well.

Thanks for the feedback.

San Diego ASA Special Meeting People v. Jackson Lessons Learned with Q&A by Defense Attorney for Jovan Jackson K. Lance Rogers of Turner Law Group, APC December 8, 2009 @ 7pm sharp!

6070 Mt. Alifan, 3rd Floor

San Diego, California

All who are interested in the future of medical marijuana through legal collective and cooperative distribution should attend the next San Diego ASA meeting at 7pm sharp. Expert defense attorney K. Lance Rogers will provide us with 'lessons learned' from the historic Jackson case and at 8pm he will offer a question and answer period for your lingering questions about this local landmark trial.

This event is as free, just as the plant should be.

For profit or not, it did not matter on December 1,
2009. In the case of the People vs. Jackson the jury decided "very quickly" and "conclusively" that due to the "medical marijuana affirmative defense", they could not convict anyone in a collective or cooperative of "selling marijuana" because selling marijuana is not strictly forbidden in the law that allows for an affirmative defense.

If the jury cannot find the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable" doubt, the defendant must be found not guilty based on our justice system, said the judge.

With regard to medical marijuana collectives & cooperatives jurors said;

"... the prosecution gave his kind of narrow definition during the closing arguments but there was nothing in the law that really backed that up...", yet another juror said;

"... when you have an issue of doubt, the law shows that the benefit of that doubt NEEDS to go to the defendant..." and went on to say;

"... we had no evidence on the table that there could not be a profit in a cooperative..."

7pm "Lessons Learned"

8pm "Questions & Answers"

6070 Mt. Alifan, 3rd Floor

San Diego, California

If you are unable to make the meeting you can use the following websites to keep up to date with the evolving laws regarding safe access to medical marijuana in San Diego County and nationwide.

San Diego ASA: www. safeaccesssd. org <San Diego Chapter & National ASA www. safeaccessnow. org
Click to expand...
 
kmk420kali

kmk420kali

Freedom Fighter
Veteran
It sounds like Jurors are paying attention to some of these high profile cases...where afterwards, the Jurors saying that if they had known all the facts, they never would have Convicted--
 
B

Blue Dot

"... we had no evidence on the table that there could not be a profit in a cooperative..."
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure there is a non profit clause in SB420 as well as the AG's guidelines.
 
J

JackTheGrower

Blue Dot said:
I'm pretty sure there is a non profit clause in SB420 as well as the AG's guidelines.
Click to expand...

Please clarify.. I'm not after you but your imput in this thread can be better than "You think maybe kinda" Please Blue Dot.. This is really a landmark thing if it is a State Scope and that's what I'm asking.

If you can share something about your "feelings" we can read such as a reference to text or news please do so okay friend?

Let's learn things today together.

Thanks
 
J

JackTheGrower

kmk420kali said:
It sounds like Jurors are paying attention to some of these high profile cases...where afterwards, the Jurors saying that if they had known all the facts, they never would have Convicted--
Click to expand...

I sure hope someone can get more details. I'm not finding much on the case but, maybe I don't know where to look.

Anyone got more info?


Jack
 
B

Blue Dot

Just saying there's language in both SB420 and the AG's guidelines that say this and I really hate having to look up the sections everytime this comes up because I've quoted the sections a million times before.

Just saying either that juror was wrong or for some reason those facts weren't presented (which I can't believe in a million years) so I just think that juror make an incorrect interpretation.

That's not "landmark" that's just an error.
 
J

JackTheGrower

Blue Dot said:
Just saying there's language in both SB420 and the AG's guidelines that say this and I really hate having to look up the sections everytime this comes up because I've quoted the sections a million times before.

Just saying either that juror was wrong or for some reason those facts weren't presented (which I can't believe in a million years) so I just think that juror make an incorrect interpretation.

That's not "landmark" that's just an error.
Click to expand...

Okay.. You are not making sense to me.

Are we getting a link or are we back to how you feel?
 
centralcoastbud

centralcoastbud

Member
I thought we've already been through the fact that SB420 was recently found to be unconstitutional and that the CA supreme court has 3 months to put out an official letter? Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't that render the 'language' in it null?
 
B

Blue Dot

centralcoastbud said:
I thought we've already been through the fact that SB420 was recently found to be unconstitutional and that the CA supreme court has 3 months to put out an official letter? Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't that render the 'language' in it null?
Click to expand...

In 3 months time, YES, but for right now when this case was tried SB420 was in FULL EFFECT.

The SC's decision won't be "retroactive".
 
J

JackTheGrower

centralcoastbud said:
I thought we've already been through the fact that SB420 was recently found to be unconstitutional and that the CA supreme court has 3 months to put out an official letter? Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't that render the 'language' in it null?
Click to expand...

I watched the video and was focused an how both sides agree that plant limits and weight were out.. I don't know about other parts.

I do believe they both agreed to not scrap SB420.
 
M

Mrgrowem

Active member
JackTheGrower,

Please look here, http://www.safeaccessnow.org/punbb/ for lots more info. You'll have to dig through some of the threads. Be sure to check out the "sewer". I feel there'll be more coming on this case in the near future. It may be more than just another case. Of course that depends on who's doing the twisting of words......
 
J

JackTheGrower

Okay I'm dumb.. Does SB420 define collective? I don't think it does..

Does anything define Collective?
 
M

Mrgrowem

Active member
Blue Dot,

If you've not read the threads at SafeAccess, it may give you some more info as well. I've followed this case myself for a long time. It's a unique case in its own way.
 
B

Blue Dot

Mrgrowem said:
Blue Dot,

If you've not read the threads at SafeAccess, it may give you some more info as well. I've followed this case myself for a long time. It's a unique case in its own way.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's unique at all.
 
J

JackTheGrower

You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top