August 18, 1999

Federal Judge George King surprised and disappointed the defense team for Todd McCormick and Peter McWilliams in pretrial rulings against them on all of the major defense motions, including federal jurisdiction over intrastate medical marijuana and the key issue of selective prosecution.

He is not expected to rule on the much more complex issue of the right to a medical necessity defense until October. The trial is set for November 16^th. Of course, this case has been delayed many times before.

See
September 7^th Trial Date Set For McCormick and McWilliams;

Although the defense had entered a number of motions that would have made the prosecution’s case difficult or impossible, if the judge had allowed them, most were of a relatively technical nature.

However, the issue of the selective prosecution of McCormick and McWilliams, while the Feds protect large scale marijuana growers and sellers who might be prosecution witnesses, goes to the very heart of the enforcement of marijuana prohibition.

In the B. E. Smith case, the selective prosecution question was also rejected by the judge. However, in that case the question was whether the decision to prosecute was made because Smith has simply been too outspoken an advocate of medical marijuana, not about the role other growers.
See
Smith Sentenced to 27 Months In Federal Prison For 87 Medical Marijuana Plants:
Judge Cites Smith’s "Disdain For Federal Law" – What Is The Definition Of A "Political Prisoner?"
"Every day I’m in prison will be seen by me as another day in service of my nation."
"I forgive you for what you’re about to do to me."

Certainly, McCormick and McWilliams have also been outspoken, but there are added dimensions to this case that reflect on the essential arbitrariness of the prosecution of all marijuana prohibition cases in virtually all jurisdictions.

The arbitrary power of the police, prosecutors and the courts to pick and choose whom to crush is simply an extension of the arbitrary legal classification of "drugs" without regard to their real social impact.
See
A Proposal For A Rational Allocation Of Drug Education Budgets
Based On The Harm Done By Various Substances -- Analysis By Richard Cowan

At every level, this arbitrary power makes a mockery of the concept of equal justice. There is no equal justice for marijuana users, medical or otherwise. There is no equal justice for the victims of mandatory minimums. There is no equal justice for the defendants in this case.

If a jury can be unanimously duped or intimidated into going along with this injustice, the defense pretrial motions will be an important part of the appeal record, and the case will go to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

In the meantime, the cancer in the "criminal justice system" grows. Again, if anyone thinks that this is just about marijuana, they do not understand the concept of equal justice.