Terminally-ill man charged with felonies for treating himself with marijuana

[rambone]

LONG GROVE, IA — A man with terminal cancer of the blood vessels is being put on trial (along with his whole family) for growing marijuana plants that he used to ease his suffering. If he survives long enough to be convicted, he could face 3 years in prison, which he believes will be a certain death sentence.

As if the situation were not unjust enough, the defense team is being gagged from discussing in front of the jury the man's illness or the reason he was growing the marijuana.

“I’m not allowed to mention anything,” Mackenzie said Thursday, the day Judge Henry Latham’s ruling was filed. “I’m not allowed to give proof why I was using. Now, there is no fair trial.”

On July 7th, Mr. Mackenzie was rushed from the courtroom on a stretcher. The judge didn't allow the jury to see that either.

Terminally-ill man charged with felonies for treating himself with marijuana


[ Pictured: Benton Mackenzie and his 73-year-old parents, all charged in the so-called drug conspiracy. ]




How evil must a person be to support this?

 

[mrjarrell]

Just another continuation of the insane judicial system that has allowed the drug war to take over it. Not allowed to practice nullification (even when it's your Right) and not allowed to give evidence that would throw the law into a bad light. Evil is the correct word here. No doubt our resident defender of the system will be along directly to tell us why this man deserves to die in prison to support the system.

It's almost as evil as this guy.
Cop Rats Out His Daughter-in-Law After Helping Her Grow Marijuana for His Cancer-Stricken Granddaughter - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[Expat]

A person's excuses for knowingly breaking a law aren't usually examined during the trial phase, are they? I thought that sort of information is normally presented during the penalty phase. I am not a lawyer but that is my impression.

 

[MisterChester]

Hoping the jury goes for nullification.

 

[Dean C.]

Can we please just stop wasting time and money and legalize pot? I understand the police and the wonderful people at the DEA would get their budgets cut but I really dont care.

 

[jedi]

Hoping the jury goes for nullification.

Most jury have no clue what that is.

 

[jedi]

Can we please just stop wasting time and money and legalize pot? I understand the police and the wonderful people at the DEA would get their budgets cut but I really dont care.

too many money involved to do that.
1) The king's men lose a major part of their work
2) Company's that supply equipment to the king's men will lose a major source of revenue as well

 

[Henry]

This stuff has got to stop!
Enough is enough!
Think of the children!
He should be tried by the state and sentenced to the penalty of death carried out by the same state.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This bring to mind a question: Why do we not try a novel concept like giving jurors the truth in its entirety and letting them make a decision based on the entire truth and not just what someone decides to allow them to hear? All said and done, the present practice is a form of external jury nullification.

 

[level.eleven]

Law isn't a drum circle. We convene to determine whether or not a law has been broken.

 

[Libertarian01]

A person's excuses for knowingly breaking a law aren't usually examined during the trial phase, are they? I thought that sort of information is normally presented during the penalty phase. I am not a lawyer but that is my impression.

To Expat,

I am not a lawyer, but I presume that the reasoning is critical to the breaking of the law, insofar as intent goes.

For example, say a man comes through your back door yelling at you to get out of his house. He is wielding a knife and coming at you. You are armed and shoot him. For some reason this goes to trial. You should explain you motivation for shooting the man. There was no malice in your shooting of him. Your motivation is critical to explaining the reason for the actions you took. That you pulled your gun and shot him are indisputable. You intentionally caused his death. However, you MUST be allowed to explain your reasoning for the action that would otherwise be illegal. To deny you that is to deny you the necessary means to defend yourself.

In another example say you are driving down a dark road after a storm and come across a single car accident where three (3) people, a husband, a wife, and a small child are seriously injured. You try to call 911 for help but there is no signal during the storm. So you load them into your car and exceed the posted speed limit rushing them to the hospital. If you get stopped by the State Police the guy has no mercy and charges you with reckless driving and speeding. In this state there are NO exceptions for taking an injured person to seek treatment. Even IF what you did was 100% illegal with no wiggle room a jury should be allowed to hear your reasoning, then they can decide the greater good - the law without exception or with exceptions.

In any event a person should be allowed to tell their motivation for performing an act. Then a jury can decide with greater understanding and the likelihood of a little thing called "justice" just may(?) occur.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ModernGunner]

Is growing pot illegal in Iowa? There's your answer. Mitigating factors can be presented during the penalty phase.

 

[rambone]

Is growing pot illegal in Iowa? There's your answer. Mitigating factors can be presented during the penalty phase.

When the law is unjust, the jury has the option to vote to acquit, even if it is obvious the defendant broke the law. Its called jury nullification.

Normal folks don't like taking part in blatant oppression.

 

[LPMan59]

He could have gotten an Rx for Marinol and broken no laws regardless of how stupid the law may be.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Law isn't a drum circle. We convene to determine whether or not a law has been broken.

It, per the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is also the right of the jury to judge the law.

Is growing pot illegal in Iowa? There's your answer. Mitigating factors can be presented during the penalty phase.

Why can't or shouldn't they also be presented during the trial phase? Is self defense a mitigating factor in homicide? Should juries be allowed to hear evidence of that? Or just simply decide if someone killed another and let the self defense come out during the penalty phase?

He could have gotten an Rx for Marinol and broken no laws regardless of how stupid the law may be.

I knew someone who used medical marijuana, it was more effective and cheaper than Marinol. Her insurance didn't cover Marinol and iirc the pills were something about $10 each, along with the fact that it would depend on if she could keep the pill down long enough for it to take effect. Swallow the pill, 5 minutes later it would come back up. Not so much of a problem with inhaled smoke.

 

[steveh_131]

Law isn't a drum circle. We convene to determine whether or not a law has been broken.

This has never been true.

“It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
- John Adams

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson

 

[mrjarrell]

Law isn't a drum circle. We convene to determine whether or not a law has been broken.

Not in Indiana. The state Constitution is very clear on the matter, (no matter what some judge might say).

Article 1, Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

 

[HoughMade]

I guess if the moral outrage of the majority is kindled against marijuana laws, every person accused of breaking them, or a large majority, will go free.

 

[mrjarrell]

I guess if the moral outrage of the majority is kindled against marijuana laws, every person accused of breaking them, or a large majority, will go free.

As they should. No victim, no crime.

 

[HoughMade]

Do they almost all go free?