Recent Blog Posts

2011 News on Medical Marijuana

Brian Michaels — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:57:00 GMT

2011: The Year In Review – NORML’s Top 10 Events That Shaped Marijuana Policy

by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy DirectorDecember 29, 2011

#1 NORML Sues to Halt Government’s Prosecution of Medical Cannabis Providers
In October, the United States Deputy Attorney General, along with the four US Attorneys from California, announced their intentions to escalate federal efforts targeting the state’s medical cannabis dispensaries and providers. In response, members of the NORML Legal Committee filed suit in November against the federal government arguing that its actions were in violation of the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. Plaintiffs further argued, using the theory of judicial estoppel, that the Justice Department had previously affirmed in federal court that it would no longer use federal resources to prosecute cannabis patients or providers who are compliant with state law. NORML’s lawsuit remains pending. Read the full story here.

#2 Members of Congress Introduce First Bill Since 1937 to Legalize Cannabis
House lawmakers introduced legislation in Congress in June to end the federal criminalization of the personal use of marijuana. The bipartisan measure – HR 2306, the ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011′ – prohibits the federal government from prosecuting adults who use or possess cannabis by removing the plant and its primary psychoactive constituent, THC, from the five schedules of the United States Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The bill awaits Congressional action. Read the full story here.

#3 Gallup: Majority of Americans Support Legalizing Cannabis
A record 50 percent of Americans now believe that marijuana ought to be legalized for adult use, according to a nationwide Gallup poll of 1,005 adults published in October. The 2011 survey results mark the first time ever that Gallup has reported that more Americans support legalizing cannabis (50 percent) than oppose it (46 percent). Read the full story here.

#4 Over One Million Americans Now Use Cannabis Legally Under State Law
Between one million to one-and-a-half million US citizens are legally authorized by the laws of their state to use marijuana, according to data compiled in May by NORML from state medical marijuana registries and patient estimates. Read the full story here.

#5 Marijuana Prosecutions For 2010 Near Record High
Police made 853,838 arrests in 2010 for marijuana-related offenses according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Report, released in September. The annual arrest total is among the highest ever reported by the agency. Marijuana arrests now comprise more than one-half (52 percent) of all drug arrests in the United States. Read the full story here.

#6 Largest State Doctors Association Calls For Legalizing Cannabis
The California Medical Association in October called for the “legalization and regulation” of cannabis for adults. The association, which represents some 35,000 physicians, recommends that cannabis be taxed and regulated “in a manner similar to alcohol.” Read the full story here.

#7 Connecticut Decriminalizes Cannabis Possession Offenses
Statewide legislation took effect in July reducing the penalties for the adult possession of up to one-half ounce of marijuana from a criminal misdemeanor (formerly punishable by one year in jail and a $1,000 fine) to a non-criminal infraction, punishable by a $150 fine, no arrest or jail time, and no criminal record. Read the full story here.

#8 Vaporized Cannabis Augments Analgesic Effect of Opiates in Humans
Vaporized cannabis significantly augments the analgesic effects of opiates in patients with chronic pain, according to clinical trial data published online in the journal Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics in November. Investigators surmised that cannabis-specific interventions “may allow for opioid treatment at lower doses with fewer [patient] side effects.” Read the full story here.

#9 State Governors Call on Obama Administration to Reclassify Cannabis
In December, governors from Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington formally requested the Obama administration to reclassify cannabis under federal law in a manner that would allow states to regulate its therapeutic use without federal interference. The administration in July had previously rejected a nine-year-old petition calling on the agency to initiate hearings to reassess the present classification of marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance without any ‘accepted medical use in treatment.’ Read the full story here.

#10 Delaware Becomes 16th State to Legalize Limited Medical Use of Marijuana
State lawmakers in May approved legislation to allow patients with a qualifying illness may legally possess up to six ounces of cannabis, provided the cannabis is obtained from a state-licensed, not-for-profit ‘compassion center.’ The law is anticipated to be implemented in 2012. Read the full story here.

How to Beat a DUI

Brian Michaels — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:49:00 GMT


		Share

E-Mail News Alerts

Get breaking news and daily headlines. Browse all e-mail newsletters

Related To Story

How To Fight A DUI Charge

Breathalyzers, Field Sobriety Tests Can Be Inaccurate

POSTED: 2:06 pm PST January 4, 2012

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- By Ed Greenberger, THELAW.TV With the holidays come and gone, thousands of Americans are facing an unwanted byproduct of the festive season – a drunk driving charge. Driving under the influence (DUI) is a lot more common than you might think. According to the websiteDrinkingandDriving.org, nearly a million Americans are arrested for DUI each year. In some states, one out of every 100 people will face a DUI arrest this year. DUI cases are often cut and dry – a police officer stops a driver who has been driving erratically and, upon closer observation, determines the driver is clearly intoxicated and not fit for the road. But many DUI cases are not that clear. “There are many factors involved in most drunk driving arrests, and a driver who has been charged with DUI should know that he can fight those charges,” says attorney Martin Sweet of legal information website THELAW.TV.

There are two main tests that police officers administer in a possible drunk driving situation, and both can be problematic:
• Breathalyzer test – Police will usually ask a driver to submit to this test. Most states set the legal limit for blood alcohol content at .08 percent. But if you blow a .081, isn’t it possible the Breathalyzer wasn’t perfectly accurate? The accuracy of these tests has been successfully challenged in court time and time again.
• Field sobriety test – In this test, the driver is asked to perform simple acts designed to test his balance, coordination, and motor skills. But every such test contains conditions that could alter the outcome. For example, it might be raining. Perhaps the driver is wearing high heels at the time or the sobriety test is being conducted on a gravel road. If the driver slips, was it really because she was drunk? You can actually refuse to take either of these tests if you’ve been pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. But you should know that doing so might not be the best course of action. In some states, refusing a Breathalyzer test is actually a crime punishable by jail time. Once you’re charged with DUI, the best thing you can do is consult an attorney who specializes in drunk driving cases. “Don’t assume that you will necessarily be convicted of DUI once you are charged,” saysBakersfield, California criminal defense lawyer Mark J. Bigger. “If you hire a DUI lawyer, you might be surprised at all the different outcomes that could be available including a dismissal or reduction depending upon the circumstances of the case.”

Do you have more information about this story? Contact us

HOW CALIFORNIA'S NEW PRISON RE-ASSIGNMENT WORKS

Brian Michaels — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:24:00 GMT

Earlier this year, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed Assembly Bill (AB) 109 and AB 117, historic legislation that will enable California to close the revolving door of low-level inmates cycling in and out of state prisons. It is the cornerstone of California’s solution for reducing the number of inmates in the state’s 33 prisons to 137.5 percent design capacity by May 24, 2013, as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

All provisions of AB 109 and AB 117 are prospective and implementation of the 2011 Realignment Legislation will begin October 1, 2011. No inmates currently in state prison will be transferred to county jails or released early.

Governor Brown also signed multiple trailer bills to ensure the 2011 Realignment secured proper funding before implementation could go into effect.

The 2011 Realignment is funded with a dedicated portion of state sales tax revenue and Vehicle License Fees (VLF) outlined in trailer bills AB 118 and SB 89. The latter provides revenue to counties for local public safety programs and the former establishes the Local Revenue Fund 2011 (Fund) for counties to receive the revenues and appropriate funding for 2011 Public Safety Realignment.

Funding of Realignment

The following trailer bills were signed to secure sufficient funding for counties:

• AB111 o Givescountiesadditionalflexibilitytoaccessfundingtoincreaselocaljail

•

capacity for the purpose of implementing Realignment.

AB 94 (2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety) o ComesintoeffectuponthepassageofAB111. o Authorizescountieswhohavereceivedaconditionalawardunderaspecifiedjail

facilities financing program to relinquish that award and reapply for a conditional

award under a separate financing program. o Lowersthecounty’srequiredcontributionfrom25percentto10percentand

additionally requires CDCR and the Corrections Standard Authority to give funding preference to those counties that relinquish local jail construction conditional awards and agree to continue to assist the state in siting re-entry facilities.

• AB118 o Outlinesthefinancialstructureforallocatingfundstoavarietyofaccountsfor

realignment. o EstablishestheLocalRevenueFund2011forreceivingrevenueand

appropriates from that account to the counties. o Directsthedepositofrevenuesassociatedwith1.0625percentofthestatesales

tax rate to be deposited in the Fund.

CDCR Fact Sheet Page 1o Establishesareserveaccountshouldrevenuescomeinhigherthananticipated. o Thereallocationformulaswillbedevelopedmorepermanentlyusingappropriate

data and information for the 2012-‘13 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter. o Implementssufficientprotectionstoprovideongoingfundingandmandated

protection for the state and local government. o Thesmallestofcountiesthatbenefitfromtheminimumgrantwilleachreceive

approximately $77,000 in 2011-‘12.

• SB89 o Dedicatesaportion($12)oftheVehicleLicenseFeetotheFund. o Revenuecomesfromtwosources;freedupVLFpreviouslydedicatedtoDMV

administration and VLF that was previously dedicated to cities for general

purpose use. o EstimatedtotalamountofVLFrevenuenowdedicatedtorealignmentis$354.3

million in 2010-2011.

• SB87 o Providescountieswithaone-timeappropriationof$25milliontocovercosts

associated with hiring, retention, training, data improvements, contracting costs, and capacity planning pursuant to each county’s AB 109 implementation plan.

Local Planning Process

The Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), which was previously established in Penal Code § 1230, will develop and recommend to the county Board of Supervisors an implementation plan for 2011 Public Safety Realignment. An Executive Committee from the CCP members will be comprised of the following:

o Chiefprobationofficer o Chiefofpolice o Sheriff o DistrictAttorney

o PublicDefender o Presidingjudgeofthesuperiorcourt(orhis/herdesignee) o ArepresentativefromeithertheCountyDepartmentofSocialServices,Mental

Health, or Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs, as appointed by the County Board of Supervisors.

The Executive Committee plan is deemed accepted by the county Board of Supervisors unless the Board rejects the plan by a four-fifths vote.

Community, Local Custody

AB 109 allows non-violent, non-serious, and non sex offenders to serve their sentence in county jails instead of state prisons. However, counties can contract back with the State to house local offenders.

Under AB 109:

• No inmates currently in state prison will be transferred to county jails. • No inmates currently in state prison will be released early. • All felons sent to state prison will continue to serve their entire sentence in state prison. • All felons convicted of current or prior serious or violent offenses, sex offenses, and sex

offenses against children will go to state prison.

CDCR Fact Sheet Page 2

• There are nearly 60 additional crimes that are not defined in Penal Code as serious or violent offenses but at the request of law enforcement were added as offenses that would be served in state prison rather than in local custody.

Please see the document “AB 109: Final Crime Exclusion List” for a complete listing of those crimes.

Post-Release (County-Level) Community Supervision

CDCR continues to have jurisdiction over all offenders who are on state parole prior to the implementation date of October 1, 2011. Prospectively, county-level supervision for offenders upon release from prison will include current non-violent, current non-serious (irrespective of priors), and some sex offenders. County-level supervision will not include:

• Inmates paroled from life terms to include third-strike offenders; • Offenders whose current commitment offense is violent or serious, as defined by

California's Penal Code §§ 667.5(c) and 1192.7(c); • High-risk sex offenders, as defined by CDCR; • Mentally Disordered Offenders; nor • Offenders on parole prior to October 1, 2011.

Offenders who meet the above-stated conditions will continue to be under state parole supervision.

Each county Board of Supervisors was required to designate a county agency to be responsible for post-release supervision and provide that information to CDCR by August 1, 2011. In turn, CDCR must notify counties of an individual's release at least one month prior. Once the individual has been released, CDCR will no longer have jurisdiction over any person who is under post-release community supervision. No person shall be returned to prison on a parole revocation except for those life-term offenders who paroled pursuant to Penal Code § 3000.1 (Penal Code § 3056 states that only these offenders may be returned to state prison).

Parole Revocations Starting October 1, 2011, all parole revocations will be served in county jail instead of state prison and can only be up to 180 days.

The responsibility of parole revocations will continue under the Board of Parole Hearings until July 1, 2013, at which time the parole revocation process will become a local court-based process. Local courts, rather than the Board of Parole Hearings, will be the designated authority for determining revocations. Contracting back to the state for offenders to complete a custody parole revocation is not an option. Only offenders previously sentenced to a term of life can be revoked to prison.

After July, 1, 2013 The Board of Parole Hearings will continue to conduct

CDCR Fact Sheet Page 3

• Parole consideration for lifers; • Medical parole hearings; • Mentally disordered offender cases; and • Sexually Violent Predator cases.

AB 109 also provides the following under parole: • Allows local parole revocations up to 180 days

• Authorizes flash incarceration at the local level for up to 10 days Inmates released to parole after serving a life term (e.g., murderers, violent sex offenders, and

third-strikers) will be eligible for parole revocation back to state prison if ordered by the Board.

The Division of Juvenile Justice

AB 109 limited the future juvenile court commitments to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). However, AB 117 removes this provision. As such, there will be no changes to DJJ during the 2011 realignment.

Casey Anthony Editorial

Brian Michaels — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:49:00 GMT

Attorney Michaels Casey Anthony Article:

http://thelosangelesbeat.com/2011/07/casey-anthony-verdict-not-a-shock-to-this-attorney/

CASEY ANTHONY ANALYSIS

The only thing I find shocking about the result of the Casey Anthony verdict is that so many people were shocked. This happens time and again in this country because our news media who turn criminal jury trials into sport often get it wrong so many times. The talking heads, many of whom are attorneys themselves and haven't seen the inside of a courtroom for years, beat a blood lust into anyone who will tune into their show for the advertising revenues their networks seek. This is an all too dangerous trend that needs to end.

Having worked in the criminal courts for over 18 years as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I know all too well how juries behave. I also know the law. I rarely watch anything related to the law on television because it's usually wrong. No CSI. No Law and Order. No sensational trial coverage. I may indulge in the occasional Judge Judy episode for a laugh, and because I think everyone understands that's all a bit tongue in cheek.

I do watch CNN and had always thought them a respected news outlet. No more. Anderson Cooper and Nancy Grace in particular have done more to damage the reputation of the media in their coverage of criminal trials than I have ever seen. Even Dr. Drew Pinsky, whose credentials to comment on legal proceedings are non-existent chimed in over and over about the patently obvious guilt of Ms. Anthony. Respected attorneys like Jeffrey Toobin joined the chorus. So now we're supposed to all be shocked by the outcome. Consider the source.

On Sunday, I found myself watching the defense closing arguments. First Jose Baez, in his first and only murder trial, and then Cheney Mason, reviewed the evidence and then succinctly explained the law. Having seen none of this trial or any part of the testimony, I turned to my wife and said, this is an acquittal. I then posted my opinion on Facebook account for posterity on Sunday and was roundly castigated for it. The rest is history. Here's why…

Whether Ms. Anthony committed the crime or not, there was no proof of causation. Every homicide requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the crime. Then the jury decides, based on the instructions of law, what degree of homicide, if any, the defendant committed. In this case the Prosecution, caught up in their 15 minutes of fame, went for it all and sought the death penalty by charging First Degree Murder. Ooops. Oh, and by the way, laughing at the other side's closing argument is a no-no. Juries don't care for that at all.

First degree murder requires a plan, and then the crime. As with all homicides it also requires proof of cause of death. All they had was a google search and air testing for chloroform. The form of testing used by the prosecution had never ever been used in a court of law before. Shaky is an understatement. There was no toxicology. All they found were bones. Bones and a theory does not make a conviction. Don't even get me started on motive.

The prosecution also sought a manslaughter conviction which is a homicide committed with gross negligence, a really bad accident, which is a more plausible theory. But again, where's the cause? So in the end this was really an unwinnable case for the Prosecution. Had the media not shined their bright lights on this small corner of the Criminal Justice System this case could have and should have plead to something like 2nd degree murder and a 15 year sentence. But the Prosecutor went for death and now he's "retired". Probably the only good decision that guy made was to promptly retire. I'd have given up too if I lost the biggest trial of my career to a once suspended attorney trying his first Murder case.

As the defense said in their closing press conference, let this be lesson to you all. No less than the Constitution of the United States provide that no person can be convicted of a crime in this country unless a jury of their peers convicts you of all the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the media or the drones that follow their words want to stomp their feet and jump up and down about the injustice of it all, the jury did their job. If you are looking for someone to blame in this case turn on the TV. The media failed here yet again, and created a mob mentality that fortunately this court and this jury did not yield too. This time, the system worked.

Did Casey Anthony kill her daughter? For what it's worth my guess is that she did, probably by accident. But therein lies the problem. All we can do here is guess. It's a sad and tragic case for everyone involved. A shocking result, though, it is not.

As reported in the LosAngelesBeat.com July 7, 2011

DUI's and the Holidays

Criminal Defense Attorney — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:51:00 GMT

It’s the Holiday season and once again it is also high season for Driving Under The Influence cases in the Los Angeles area. Driving Under The Influence cases make up a solid majority of criminal cases in the Los Angeles area and are one of the most common crimes that attorneys are faced with in their criminal practice. Sadly it is probably true that everybody knows somebody who has either had a DUI or been affected by one at some time in their lives. That being said forewarned is forearmed. One of the first questions people ask me is always what is the legal limit needed to convict a person of DUI in the State of California. California Vehicle Code Section 23152(b) sets the limit at .08% blood alcohol or greater. That’s not a very large amount of alcohol and one can achieve that blood alcohol level with just a couple of drinks depending on a number of factors including their weight, tolerance, food intake and a number of other factors.

Convictions for first time DUI offenses typically result in a fine that can be nearly $1500.00. You will have to attend a mandatory alcohol class and suffer some kind of driver’s license suspension. Subsequent convictions can cost far more and can result in substantial jail time. The best defense to a DUI is taking a cab or having a designated driver. Brian Michaels is a former prosecutor with the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office and is presently in private practice in Encino and Century City, California specializing in Criminal Defense and DUI litigation.