Marijuana grower’s 20-year prison sentence prompts judge to question drug laws’ mandatory minimums

Marijuana grower’s 20-year prison sentence prompts judge to question drug laws’ mandatory minimums

Marijuana grower’s 20-year prison sentence prompts judge to question drug laws’ mandatory minimums.

 

An article in the Buffalo News may have triggered some humanity in a Judge’s mind. It goes on to read.

 

Joseph Tigano III is going to prison for growing marijuana – and he’s going for a long time. Too long in the eyes of the federal judge who sentenced him.

The Cattaraugus County man, convicted of operating a marijuana farm with more than 1,000 plants, found himself Monday in the middle of the national drug sentencing debate.

Sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison, Tigano is one of those defendants whom reform advocates point to when making the case for more lenient drug penalties.

“I feel it is much greater than necessary,” U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford said of the mandatory 20-year sentence, “but I do not have a choice.”

Speaking from the bench, Wolford made it clear that she would have preferred sentencing Tigano to less time in prison and suggested at one point that his single firearms conviction was more worrisome than any of his four drug convictions.

The judge’s comments came at a time when members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are weighing recommended reforms to mandatory minimum drug penalties.

Years in the making, the push for reform is coming from lawyers and judges who think that too many nonviolent drug offenders are going to prison, and for far too long. They also contend that half of the federal prison population is serving time for drug crimes.

Now 51, Tigano was found guilty by a jury in May of manufacturing and distributing marijuana, maintaining a premise for the manufacture of marijuana, conspiracy to manufacture and possess marijuana and being a previously convicted felon in possession of firearms.

Under the law, he could have faced up to life in prison.

“There’s clearly a need for you to be punished,” Wolford told Tigano. “But I do not believe you present a danger to the community, by any means.”

Arrested in 2008 at his home in the Village of Cattaraugus, Tigano and his father, Joseph Sr., now 77, were accused of running a multimillion-dollar marijuana business.

Despite the size and scope of his business, Tigano was portrayed Monday as a defendant facing an excessive amount of time behind bars.

Cheryl Meyers Buth, Tigano’s defense lawyer, praised Wolford for challenging the mandatory minimum sentences that exist in so many drug laws and suggested that her client is simply the latest defendant to face an unfair punishment.

“I think Judge Wolford quite bravely went on the record to give her opinion that although she does not have the discretion to impose a sentence under the mandatory minimum, she thought a sentence about half as severe would have been more reasonable,” Meyers Buth said.

Read entire article here

Every minute, someone gets arrested for marijuana possession in the U.S.

Every minute, someone gets arrested for marijuana possession in the U.S.

September 28, 2015

An recent article in the Washington Post about the arrest rate for marijuana possession is alarming. It goes on to read.

Every minute, someone gets arrested for marijuana possession in the U.S.

 

“The nation’s law enforcement agencies are still arresting people for marijuana possession at near record-high rates, according to the latest national data released today by the FBI.”

“In 2014, at least 620,000 people were arrested for simple pot possession that’s 1,700 people per day, or more than 1 per minute. ”

“And that number is an undercount, because a handful of states either don’t report arrest numbers to the FBI, or do so only on a limited basis.”

 

marijuana possession arrest stats 1989-2014

“Nationwide, more than 1 in 20 arrests were for simple marijuana possession. Twenty years ago, near the dawn of the drug war, fewer than 2 percent of arrests were for pot possession. But that rate rose steadily throughout the 1990s and 2000s, even as those years saw a shift toward less-restrictive marijuana laws at the state level.”

“2014 saw the first year of fully legal recreational marijuana markets in Washington state and Colorado. But even as marijuana arrests plunged in those states, they crept upward at the national level.”

“It’s unacceptable that police still put this many people in handcuffs for something that a growing majority of Americans think should be legal,” said Tom Angell of the Marijuana Majority, a pro-legalization group, in a statement. “There’s just no good reason that so much police time and taxpayer money is spent punishing people for marijuana when so many murders, rapes and robberies go unsolved.” The FBI’s figures show that over half of the nation’s violent crimes, like murder, rape and assault, went unsolved in 2014.

“At 620,000 arrests, that means that states spent nearly half a billion dollars in 2014 just to arrest people for marijuana possession.”

“These numbers refute the myth that nobody actually gets arrested for using marijuana,” Mason Tvert of the Marijuana Policy Project, a pro-legalization group, said in a statement. “It’s hard to imagine why more people were arrested for marijuana possession when fewer people than ever believe it should be a crime.”

“And the consequences of an arrest, even if it doesn’t result in charges or jail time, can be devastating. An arrest can mean missing a day of work and getting fired. It can lead to a record that prevents a person from finding work in the future. If a person is detained and unable to post bail, an arrest can mean weeks in jail waiting for trial. In extreme cases, an arrest can end in death.”

“If more states legalize and eliminate penalties for marijuana possession, the disparities in state-level marijuana enforcement may draw even more notice, given an activity that’s legal in one state can lead to life-ruining consequences for somebody just across the state line. ”

Read the entire article here

It’s Official: Marijuana Is Medicine

It’s Official: Marijuana Is Medicine

July 01, 2015

A series of papers in the Journal of the American Medical Association is starting to correct the shameful legacy of drug war politics over cannabis science. But a research catch-22 persists.

The nation’s top medical organization released a major series of papers on medical cannabis last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in a move that constitutes a small step for the AMA, but a giant leap in cannabis medical history.

In five key papers, teams of researchers systematically reviewed dozens of clinical studies of marijuana, speaking in clear language that the “use of marijuana for chronic pain, neuropathic pain, and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis is supported by high-quality evidence.”

The review validated what doctors and patients in California have risked their freedom to say for twenty years. The findings also directly refute critics who maintain that “marijuana is not medicine.”

“They concluded cannabis is useful,” said Dr. Frank Lucido, a Berkeley physician who specializes in cannabis. “I don’t think a single study didn’t show benefit. … I think it was very positive.”

“What’s driving this is a tremendous cultural shift that’s preceding the political shift,” said Martin Lee, of author Smoke Signals. The AMA is acknowledging “what’s been known for 5,000 years.”

The AMA actually opposed federal cannabis prohibition in 1937. After losing that round, most doctors have toed the Drug War line ever since. “It’s great that they have finally acknowledged there’s some medicinal value in cannabis, but the whole thing is so pathetic,” Lee said.

Most major news media outlets, however, have spun the JAMA papers negatively, embracing the narrative that many uses for medical pot are still based on poor science. News reports noted that of one of the JAMA studies found that “there was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome.”

News outlets also pointed to another review that found that “there is some evidence to support the use of marijuana for nausea and vomiting related to chemotherapy, specific pain syndromes, and spasticity from multiple sclerosis. However, for most other indications that qualify by state law for use of medical marijuana, such as hepatitis C, Crohn disease, Parkinson disease, or Tourette syndrome, the evidence supporting its use is of poor quality.”

Cannabis experts say the problem with some of the conclusions in the JAMA studies, and the reporting about them, is that they fail to own up to the main reason why study quality has often been poor: the systematic blockade on pot research. For decades, the federal government has refused to authorize research on the medical benefits of cannabis. As a result, the inconclusiveness of some of the research is more a reflection of the federal ban than of the medical effectiveness of pot. “You know how incredibly hard it is to do research that is intended to confirm benefits of cannabis?” said Warner. “It’s impossible. We still have a huge catch-22.”

Experts also say that the decision by AMA researchers to ignore the research blockade shows their bias. “It’s a national embarrassment. The federal designation that cannabis has no medical value is like saying the moon is made of green cheese,” Lee said. “It seems the AMA can’t say, ‘No, the moon is not made of green cheese.'”

The AMA researchers also fail to acknowledge the real world benefits reported by patients. For example, about one in twenty California adults (1.4 million) have used medical cannabis for a “serious” condition and 92 percent of them have reported that it worked. “We have plenty of evidence that it helps for a lot of things,” Lucido said. “We should always do more research. But we shouldn’t stop people from using it in the meantime.”

The AMA researchers also listed the side effects of cannabis without providing context. “Adverse Effects included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, and hallucination,” one of the reports concluded.

But the AMA researchers didn’t compare the adverse side effects of cannabis to those of competing analgesics and anti-inflammatories. Painkiller overdoses are America’s leading epidemic. Ibuprofen, for example, regularly causes kidney failure. But those facts were not mentioned in the JAMA studies. “A full third of the Physician’s Desk Reference is adverse effects, including death,” Lucido said. “Cannabis has about ten adverse effects, at least two of which are often desired.”

The AMA researchers’ statements about cannabis addiction also lacked context. “I imagine sleeping pills probably have a much bigger dependency ratio,” Lucido said.

Still, as half-hearted and equivocal as the JAMA papers were, they contributed to a rising tide of mainstream validation for cannabis that’s washing away its prohibition.

“Culturally, the fight is over. We won,” Lee said. “The pro-cannabis side has conquered the culture. Now politics is catching up.”

When Being Hated…Is Revered

When Being Hated…Is Revered

By Attorney Michael Komorn

 

” Lieutenant, this lawyer is a pain in the ass, I can’t stand him, I really hate him”

 

This was my client’s observation of the prosecutor after exiting the conference room she and I had been in for over an hour discussing and negotiating a possible resolution of his 2 count felony, 1 misdemeanor case.

 

These were the words my client told me he heard coming out of the prosecutor’s mouth as she stood in the hallway asking, begging the officer in charge to approve of or sign off on the demands I had made during our negotiations.

 

In the moments before this conversation took place I had made it clear to the prosecutor what I thought of the case against my client.

 

As it goes in many criminal cases the facts of what actually transpired were in dispute.

 

The criminal case involving under cover and vice officers, no video, audio or even written recordings are made during the investigation.

 

These type of “typical” investigations result in cases that revolve around the credibility of the officers. When a prosecutor has a police witness who will assert a fact in a case it is considered the gospel. It is believed that if the officer testified to that fact, independent of any counter facts or versions that differ, it will be believed.

 

Often the prosecutor in these situations will say during Pre-trial discussions sometime with the officer sitting in the same room, ” counsel are you saying the officer isn’t being honest?

 

It is these scenarios that we are grateful that we have jury trials so that peers within the community can decide who is telling the truth. But getting the prosecutor to believe the version of the facts that are told by the defendant and disregard the police officer version never happens. This case was a case filled with complete adverse and disputed facts.

 

Prior to the court proceedings we had done an extensive independent investigation and had uncovered witnesses that observed or were aware of the events alleged in the police reports. I realized these unknowns to the police witness observations were in conflict with the gospel of the police officer witness.

 

These scenarios usually lead to trials.

These scenarios are why we have trials.

These scenarios never result in the prosecutor abandoning their police officer witness and taking the side of the defendants version of the facts.

Prosecutors never agree with defense attorneys that their police officers versions are in error or untrue.

 

My strategy was let the prosecutor know that she was going to have to accept my clients version or we would be going to trial.

 

The prosecutor was obviously unaware that her conversation and advocacy to do what I wanted on the phone was within earshot of my client. During these moments I remained in the conference room and while I was aware she was calling the officer in charge I had no idea and could not hear what her she was actually saying to the officer in charge.

 

Shortly thereafter the prosecutor came back into the room to explain that they had capitulated and agreed to dismiss all felony charges in exchange for a no contest plea to an innocuous misdemeanor. As I was relaying this information to my client he explained what he had overheard the prosecutor saying about me to the officer in charge.

 

Michael, I was wondering what was going on in the conference room because when the prosecutor came out of the room and got on the phone she keep telling the person she was talking to how much she hated you and what a pain in the ass you were.

 

But wait it, the observations in the theatre of so called justice gets even better.

 

After we secured the charge reduction, dismissal of all felonies and misdemeanors and a no contest plea to the innocuous misdemeanor we still needed the pursued the judge to a sentence that also  included everything that we wanted or that was acceptable.

 

It was late in the morning and most of the cases had cleared out and been resolved. The court room had become empty when me and my client entered the Court with my intentions to discuss sentencing with the Judge.

 

As it goes the judge invited me ( the prosecutor had waived her presence for these discussions) into her chambers which were immediately behind the Judges Bench.  and unbeknownst to me the Judges Chambers also are within “yelling” earshot of anyone who was or remained in the Courtroom.

 

This scenario and positioning I am describing was also observed by client who also watched me enter the Court room and then leave with the Judge into her adjoining chambers.

 

While I would like to describe what took place over the next 10 minutes with the Judge in her chambers as a healthy academic debate about current morals and virtues what my client heard was loud voices and yelling.

 

Of course my client couldn’t see or hear the softer spoken words that the judge and I agreed upon or the friendly handshake she and I had after our academic ” discussion” about morality.

 

Which is why when I exited the Judges chambers to return to my clients side I could tell he was scared out of his mind.

 

What happened in there…?  my client asked.

 

I said the judge and I had a healthy debate and she is going do what we want at sentencing.

 

Really, said my client, because from where I was sitting it sounded like the judge hated you. I smiled and said she is going to do what we want for sentencing.

 

We left the court room, and went outside into the parking lot and walked together to our cars. As the morning sun was turning to midday my client turned to me thanking me for the outcome and reflected upon his observations.

 

Michael, everyone in that building seemed to hate your guts. I heard the prosecutor saying how much she disliked you and then it sounded like the Judge was going to lock you up. Despite that he said we got everything that  we wanted and I couldn’t be happier.

 

I realized at this time the perspective by which he had observed the events from his day in Court.

 

Everyone hated his lawyer, me. Yelling and disdain are the emotions and reactions that he had observed. He described his emotions as total fear when he heard prosecutor talk ill of me and the judge screaming at me from her chambers.

 

Yet as we stood in the parking lot and his case was resolved he explained his joy and how happy he was with the way things turned out.

 

There is a joke somewhere that begins with lawyers have thick skin or when can you tell a lawyer is offended …  I am not sure what the punch line is but I do know that my client’s reflection on the events of the day and how the hatred and disdain for me brought about the favorable resolution of his case.

 

I was emotionally devoid of any care of concern of who liked me or hated me.

 

Being a lawyer is not a popularity contest. It is a commitment to get the best results possible for my client.

 

Lawyers strategize and the negotiation process can be a disaster if a good strategy is not employed for the process. Sometime the discussions are friendly sometimes they are not. But this experience may be the first where the disdain for me and my involvement in the case was the catalyst to our favorable resolution.

 

I could be wrong but I really don’t think that the prosecutor hates me, instead she knows that if we are going to litigate the case I am going to make her life miserable by litigating, advocating and fighting the case till the end.

 

This is not hate in my eyes but respect. Likewise much of the yelling from the judge’s chambers actually was my voice as I encouraged the Judge to see things my way and not her silencing me or yelling over me.

 

In other words the loud academic debate was meaningful and needed to take place.

 

On the other hand maybe they do all hate me and maybe my skin is thick, and if that is the case then let their hatred be revered.

 

PLANET GREEN TREES RADIO – LIVE EVENT – THURSDAY SEPT 24, 2015

PLANET GREEN TREES RADIO – LIVE EVENT – THURSDAY SEPT 24, 2015

LIVE EVENT
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

PLANET GREEN TREES RADIO

At  O’Mara’s Restaurant – 2555 12 Mile Rd., Berkley, Michigan.

On the South West corner of 12 Mile Road and Coolidge

Omaras Planet Green Trees_150423_1

O’Mara’s is a local family restaurant with absolutely delicious food and drinks.

If you can’t make it to the live show be sure to tune in to the Planet Green Trees Show LINK

The best resource for everything related to Michigan medical marijuana with your host Attorney Michael Komorn. Live every Thursday evening from 8 -10 pm eastern time.

Channel 4 Komorn Autism Panel 02

 

Michael Komorn is recognized as a leading expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group with over 26,000 members, which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. Michael is also the host of Planet Green Trees Radio, a marijuana reform based show, which is broadcast every Thursday night 8-10 pm EST. Follow Komorn on Twitter.


 

If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana recommended to you as a medical marijuana patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, contact Komorn Law and ensure your rights are protected.

Contact us for a case evaluation at 800-656-3557