🚀 go-pugleaf

"Joe Winett" <joe@vigoris.net> wrote in message news:<3e414659$1@news.vigoris.net>...
> > >> 12 jurors, and not one with the common sense God gave an ant.
> > >
> > > No, they decided the case based on the evidence presented.   The
> > > jurors might feel bad now, but they shouldn't -- they did what they
> > > had to do.
> >
> > No court can make someone convict somebody of a bad law. If I were on such
> > a jury, I would nullify.
> 
> Well, sure you would.  That's why the judge didn't allow admission of the
> fact that he was growing in compliance with California law.

I'm not sure that what he was doing was in compliance with California
law.  The evidence the defense wanted to present was that what he was
doing was concistent with the intent of the passed proposition.  The
same thing is happening in Nevada - there is no prohibition against
cultivation and possession but there is a prohibition against
distribution.  The California case was not a possession case, it was
the intent to distribute that was at issue.

As far as the federal law is concerned, its legality was upheld by the
Supreme Court which is substantive evidence that it is a "good" law. 
The US SC is the final say so on those issues - that's their job and
whether you agree or disagree with their rulings, only Congress can
overturn by writing new legislation.