Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Texas Medical Marijuana Acquittal

From NewsLI.com (lit­tle known geo­graph­i­cal fact: Texas is so big that Amar­illo is actu­ally closer to Long Island, New York than it is to Hous­ton) comes this story about a suc­cess­ful mar­i­juana defense by Jeff Blackburn:

A Texas patient who uses med­ical mar­i­juana to treat the symp­toms of HIV won acquit­tal on mar­i­juana pos­ses­sion charges March 25 based on a “neces­sity defense.” Though such a defense — which requires the defen­dant to estab­lish that an oth­er­wise ille­gal act was nec­es­sary to avoid immi­nent harm more seri­ous than the harm pre­vented by the law he or she broke — has rarely been suc­cess­ful in Texas, the jury took just 11 min­utes to acquit Tim Stevens, 53. The trial was hotly contested.

Not jury nul­li­fi­ca­tion, exactly — it sounds like Jeff (el chingón, pre­vi­ously famous for clear­ing the names of Tulia defen­dants framed by Tom Cole­man) gave them a legal rea­son to acquit, and they seized it. Here’s Texas’s law on necessity:

Texas Penal Code Sec­tion 9.22:

Con­duct is jus­ti­fied if:

  1. the actor rea­son­ably believes the con­duct is imme­di­ately nec­es­sary to avoid immi­nent harm;
  2. the desir­abil­ity and urgency of avoid­ing the harm clearly out­weigh, accord­ing to ordi­nary stan­dards of rea­son­able­ness, the harm sought to be pre­vented by the law pro­scrib­ing the con­duct; and
  3. a leg­isla­tive pur­pose to exclude the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion claimed for the con­duct does not oth­er­wise plainly appear.

So to six jurors in Amar­illo, at least, the use of med­ical mar­i­juana in some cases is clearly rea­son­able; the harm sought to be pre­vented by the pro­scrip­tion of mar­i­juana is so clearly out­weighed by the desir­abil­ity of the accused’s avoid­ing “nau­sea and cycli­cal vom­it­ing syn­drome, a con­di­tion so severe that he has required hos­pi­tal­iza­tion and blood trans­fu­sions in the past” that the deci­sion took only 11 min­utes — barely time to read the jury charge and take a vote.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

13 Responses to “Texas Medical Marijuana Acquittal”

  1. Brett Bender says:

    Texas is big, but it’s not *that* big. Amar­illo to Hous­ton is about 600 miles, while Amar­illo to Long Island is about 1700 miles.

  2. Mark Bennett says:

    See? Even the miles are longer in Texas.

  3. Michael says:

    A Texas rancher was vis­it­ing a Maine farmer and bragged “Why, mah ranch in Texas is so big, it takes a whole day just to drive my truck from one end to the other.” The Maine farmer replied “Ayep, I used to have a truck like that.”

    Now El Paso is closer to Los Ange­les than it is to Hous­ton, but that doesn’t qual­ify as a little-known fact.

    And hang in there, Mark. Sooner or later some­one will make a com­ment on point.

  4. Mark Bennett says:

    I have peo­ple call me from out-of-state about cases in El Paso some­times; I have to explain the dis­tances involved. Peo­ple in the lit­tle tiny states have trou­ble con­ceiv­ing of an 800-mile drive in a straight line across a sin­gle state.

  5. Bruce says:

    Know what you get if you cut Alaska in half? Two states big­ger than Texas.

    Cur­rently in my 16th year in Alaska after 12 years in Texas. Both great places, but for dif­fer­ent rea­sons. The tex-mex food up here sucks.

    I drove my daugh­ter down to Col­orado for col­lege last fall. 4200 miles from Anchor­age to North­ern Colorado.

  6. Leviathan says:

    Per­haps Amar­illo is philosoph­cally miles closer to Long Island.

    Los Ange­les and Hous­ton are roughly equidis­tant from El Paso.

  7. While you did get the mileage wrong to Long Island, my fam­ily comes from Dal­hart orig­i­nally on both sides, about 80 miles north of Amar­illo. It is closer to the cap­i­tals of seven other states, if I recall cor­rectly, than it is to Austin.

  8. Melanie says:

    Sounds like you all are smok­ing dope and look­ing through the almanac.

    What is it about mar­i­juana that peo­ple refuse to con­front, in this age of Via­gra com­mer­cials? Even here…where you would expect to find some kind of pro­fes­sional discussion.

  9. Mark Bennett says:

    Melaine, I don’t know. I think the ridicu­lous­ness of crim­i­nal­iz­ing mar­i­juana is some­thing most read­ers here hold self-evident. So what is it about mar­i­juana that we refuse to con­front here?

    Tell us, and we’ll do our best not to let you down.

  10. The real ques­tion, in my mind, is whether this counts as a jury nul­li­fi­ca­tion ver­dict. And on one the­ory, I think it does.

    Jury nul­li­fi­ca­tion, by that the­ory, does not always amount to the jury giv­ing the judge the fin­ger. It can also amount to the jury giv­ing more weight to cer­tain legal argu­ments than they per­haps merit, because the equi­ties of the case lie in that direction.

    In other words, the defense may argue neces­sity, even though the ele­ments of the defense are not solidly pre­sented by the facts of the case. Yet by set­ting up this shadow defense, the jury will have a “peg to hang their hats on” should they wish to vote “not guilty.”

    More­over, the jurors may not even be con­sciously aware that they have nul­li­fied the law in this sort of sce­nario. It is just that their desire not to con­vict the poor bas­tard leads them to side­step the miss­ing ele­ment, add an extra ele­ment to the State’s case, or oth­er­wise color their fact-finding.

    The scary part is that this “sub­lim­i­nal” jury nul­li­fi­ca­tion works both ways — some­thing that nobody in their right mind would advo­cate. After all, if trial by jury exists to pre­vent oppres­sion by gov­ern­ment (Dun­can v. Louisiana), the Gov­ern­ment never needs to resort to it. It is free to sim­ply dis­miss the case to quit being oppressive.

    This is why Kelly Siegler wants to scare jurors: facts be damned, if the jury hates the defen­dant enough, fears him enough, they will make excuses for weak­nesses in the State’s case, or find weak evi­dence over­whelm­ing and unques­tion­able. It is pretty rep­re­hen­si­ble, but effective.

  11. marc says:

    You can post to Tim’s myspace page.

    http://www.myspace.com/amarillotim

  12. […] head demands “What’s your author­ity for that?” to which he answers — Texas Penal Code Sec­tion 9.22. Book­mark this Page: These icons link to social book­mark­ing sites where read­ers can share and […]

  13. Joseph "Ironman" Siler says:

    Med­ical Neces­sity. I have Basal Cell Carcinoma,(skin can­cer). Basal Cell can prove fatal if untreated,(so I have been told). Not as deadly as Malig­nant Melanoma, it is how­ever rather annoying,(bleeds rather eas­ily). The sur­gi­cal pro­ce­dure required to remove it is, in my opin­ion, a real pain in the,(in my case), neck, head, and face. I have had six of these pro­ce­dures done on my neck, head, and face. Never again. I decided, after the last pro­ce­dure, to try an alter­na­tive treat­ment. I man­u­fac­tured some cannabis oil, applied it to two of the remain­ing lesions, cov­ered them with a bandaid, left them on for 12hrs, and repeated the appli­ca­tion for six days. The lesions are GONE, CURED. I con­sider what I have done a “Med­ical Neces­sity” to avoid hav­ing a doc­tor stick a nee­dle in my head, and using a scalple to cut me up. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment has recently patented com­pounds in the cannnabis plant for med­ical use. I am some­what con­fused. I thought they main­tained that cannabis had NO MEDICAL USE WHAT SO EVER. Well, maybe there are some actual peo­ple with a half a brain in pol­i­tics after all.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply