OTTAWA COUNTY, Mich. – The evidentiary hearing originally set for Nov. 5 has been dropped in the case involving a medical marijuana patient charged with a disputed felony for synthetic THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.
The Ottawa County Assistant Prosecutor filed motions to quash, or suppress, the defense’s subpoenas, and adjourned the Nov. 5 hearing until a later date. Essentially this move buys the prosecution more time before explaining this issue of possible politicking in Michigan State Police Forensic Science crime labs’ marijuana reporting.
Since February, FOX 17 has covered this case involving the defendant, Max Lorincz, a Spring Lake father charged with a felony for having medical marijuana. His attorneys with Komorn Law PLLC argue Lorincz’s “smear” amount of butane hash oil is covered under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act as “usable marijuana,” or specifically the “mixture of preparation” of the marijuana plant.
Since last week FOX 17 is leading statewide coverage of a major development in the case: the defense’s claim that state police crime labs are misreporting marijuana test results. This results in ambiguous crime lab reports leading to felonies charged, despite no credible proof beyond a reasonable doubt of what the substance actually is.
The prosecution filed a motion to quash the defense subpoenas in rebuttal to the defense’s motion to quash Lorincz’s bindover and well as their motion to show cause to produce evidence and testify against incriminating emails that spell out a debate among law enforcement, scientists, and prosecutors associated with the Attorney General’s office in reporting marijuana forensically.
Earlier, the defense’s motion to show cause subpoenaed 13 people to appear in court this Thursday: 11 MSP crime lab employees, one West Michigan Enforcement Team member, and the one prosecutor with the AG’s office. The defense had ordered the named people to show lab reports, communications, and marijuana related forfeitures, all of which would produce important testimony.
However, Assistant Prosecutor Karen Miedema in her motion to quash subpoenas argued whether these people should even testify, and wrote that this would take too much time: citing Lorincz’s preliminary exam last spring, which took three hours to hear two witnesses.
Although Miedema filed this motion Oct. 30, the defense told FOX 17 they just received a phone call Tuesday adjourning Thursday’s evidentiary hearing. The defense plans to file further motions and call for a hearing likely in December.
FOX 17 reached out to the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s office and has not heard back.
Tune into FOX 17 News at 10 p.m. Thursday for an in-depth story into the developing allegations in this case.
DEWITT, Mich. – A former director of Michigan State Police Forensic Science addressed the serious allegations FOX 17 uncovered, which accuse the Attorney General’s office and state prosecutors of influencing state police crime labs to falsely report marijuana; essentially turning misdemeanors into felonies.
Former MSP Forensic Science Director John Collins told FOX 17 that he resigned from this role in 2012 due, in part, to these crime lab reporting issues: politics working to trump science.
“In my experience, it was just a non-stop political game that really got frustrating, and it wore down the morale of our staff, and it quite honestly, it wore me down.”
Collins served as director 2010 through 2012, when he said he surprised the agency by resigning; even after the 2012 success of helping earn MSP Forensic Science international accreditation with the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board.
“It was really a big deal for me to let people understand that our laboratories were not in the prosecution business, they’re not in the conviction business, they’re in the science business,” said Collins.
“And if we don’t position ourselves as being in the science business, then we really start to go down a path that’s going to lead us to a lot of trouble. And that was very tough, because that was a major cultural, a different kind of a cultural message than had really been communicated before.”
Collins said forensic science is his passion. He is now president of The Forensic Foundations Group, a consultant, and publishes articles quarterly in Crime Lab Report: Media and public policy analysis for the forensic science community. Last March, Collins also published an article in Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, and depicted how a utopian forensic crime lab would operate, which he said is quite different than state labs.
“There is a lot of politics that is involved in these cases,” said Collins.
“So even if the state police was to really kind of buck the trend, and say, ‘look, these laboratories are scientific organizations, they’re not law firms, okay, and we’re not going to let them become law firms,’ even if they kind of buck that trend, you can bet that there’s going to be some angry prosecutors that are going to call the Governor’s office and complain. It’s like kicking over a bee’s nest.”
Lorincz, an Ottawa County father, is the defendant whose case FOX 17 has covered since February. Lorincz, a card-carrying patient, is charged with a felony for having a “smear” amount medical marijuana, in the form of Butane Hash Oil.
“An accreditation assessor would have a problem would probably look at this and have a problem with why would you even say anything like this?” Collins said, looking at the crime report’s phrase, “origin unknown.”
After review of Lorincz’s crime lab report, Collins said he is not surprised to see the ambiguous results.
“Even though I don’t know the nature of what occurred within the state police, any time that scientists, or administrators of scientific operations, if they would intentionally try to create ambiguity to create a political advantage is beyond unacceptable,” said Collins.
Collins explained it is appropriate for prosecutors to explain state statutes to crime labs, or what elements constitute a crime. However, he said for any prosecutors or other officials to tamper with science is illegal.
“One thing that we do not do, or should not do, is try to widen the gray area so that we create more ambiguity so that more possibilities are on the table,” said Collins. “That’s not science, that politics.
Yet their responses appear to be blanket statements. Both agencies defer to the other: MSP public affairs officials wrote that it is up to the prosecutors to charge crimes, and then PAAM president wrote it is up to the crime labs to report science.
FOX 17 has reached out to the Attorney General’s office for comment, and has yet to hear back.
As for the defendant in this case, Max Lorincz told FOX 17 Friday that he wants the prosecutor held accountable. Lorincz also questioned the amount of money that has been spent in court over this case, and asked for justification of his felony charge.
OTTAWA COUNTY, MI – An attorney claims prosecutors pressured state police crime labs to change the way THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is reported in an effort to circumvent Michigan’s medical marijuana law.
Michael Komorn alleges scientists were told to report an unknown origin for THC contained in oil, wax or perhaps a brownie if no visible plant material was present. The THC would then be declared a synthetic substance rather than marijuana – turning a misdemeanor pot charge to a two-year felony.
“The crime lab is systematically biased towards falsely reporting Schedule 1 synthetic THC, a felony, instead of plant-based marijuana, a misdemeanor, ” Komorn, a Southfield attorney known for handling medical marijuana cases, told The Grand Rapids Press and MLive.
In the case of Max Lorincz, a 35-year-old Spring Lake man with a medical marijuana card, the change could turn him into a felon, Komorn said.
Lorincz’s troubles started in September 2014 after calling 911 for medical assistance for his wife. A police officer responded and spotted a small amount – “a smudge,” Komorn said – of hash oil.
Ottawa County prosecutors charged him in January with marijuana possession, a misdemeanor. He refused to plead guilty because he was a valid medical marijuana user. The charge was dropped in February, only to be replaced by the felony synthetic THC charge.
Komorn used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain numerous emails from state police crime lab workers, some raising concern about the way they had to report THC cases. Others testified in court about the new policy of denying evidence of THC coming from a marijuana plant if no material is found.
He contends that the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and state Attorney General Bill Schuette, an opponent of medical marijuana, influenced state police policy.
“It is scandalous, scandalous. How can you trust the state lab when they are influenced by politicians?” he said.
State police said in a statement: “The ultimate decision on what to charge an individual with rests with the prosecutor. The role of the laboratory is to determine whether marihuana or THC are present. Michigan state police laboratory policy was changed to include the statement “origin unknown” when it is not possible to determine if THC originates from a plant (marihuana) or synthetic means. This change makes it clear that the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results.”
Ottawa County Prosecutor Ronald Frantz could not be reached for comment.
A hearing in Lorincz’s case is set for Nov. 9 in Ottawa County Circuit Court.
In an email Komorn obtained from authorities, a state police crime lab supervisor, Kyle Hoskins, said examiners need to see plant material because they would have no idea how it was produced unless they watched its production. He noted the debate and asked the opinion of Ken Stecker of the Prosecuting Attorney Association of Michigan, who reportedly responded: “That is my opinion, THC is a schedule 1 drug regardless of where it comes from. I hope that helps. Ken.”
Lt. James Pierson, director of the Grand Rapids laboratory, said that police are finding a “significant amount of THC wax and oil,” which he said are not covered by the medical marijuana law.
If police seize wax or oil from a medical marijuana patient, and the lab test identifies the substance as marijuana, rather than delta-1-THC, there is no probable cause to arrest, Pierson said in an email referenced by Komorn in court filings.
He said he learned that if a “speck” of plant material is in the oil, the test will come back as marijuana.
“Is there any way to get this changed? Our prosecutors are willing to argue that one speck of marijuana does not turn the larger quantity of oil/wax into marijuana,” Pierson wrote.
Bradley Choate, supervisor of the Controlled Substances Unit in Lansing, disagreed with the changes. He said analysts are left with two choices when finding THC: identify it as marijuana, which is a misdemeanor for possession, or a synthetic equivalent of THC, which is a felony if possessed.
“There is not a third choice,” Choate wrote. “The question then becomes is the THC from a natural source, i.e., marihuana, or a synthetic source. The presence of other cannabinoids indicates that the substance is from a natural source. I don’t know of any other way to determine that THC was synthesized unless a lab was found and the pre cursor substances to make THC were present.”
He said prosecutors rely on their reports in filing charges. A report that says delta-1-THC with no explanation would lead a prosecutor to think the substance was synthetic.
“This could lead to the wrong charge of possession of synthetic THC and the ultimate wrongful conviction of an individual. For the laboratory to contribute to this possible miscarriage of justice would be a huge black eye for the Division and the Department.”
As forensic scientists, Choate said they had to apply science to the law.
“I have a problem with the procedure manual stating that a conclusion of marihuana cannot be stated in the report. … The conclusion is incorrect because the resins are Marihuana. Apparently analysts in our system (are) hung up on the fact that to identify marihuana they need to see plant material.”
Choate said that “Guiding Principles” training says “that ‘Conclusions are based on the evidence and the reference material relevant to the evidence, not on extraneous information, political pressure, or other outside influences.”
“When we made the previous changes I made it very apparent that I did not agree with it. One of my concerns was that by reporting out THC instead of marijuana it would lead Prosecutors charging people with synthetic THC. This appears to be what the agency wants. The question I would pose to all of our analysts is how they would answer questions on the stand.
“In the scenario described how would they answer the question that absent the plant material speck, in their opinion is the rest of the wax material marihuana or not and in their opinion is the THC identified synthetic or natural? Again the legal definition of marihuana includes the resinous extract which contains cannabinoids and we can identify those cannabinoids.”
A Michigan medical-marijuana patient claims in court papers that state police crime labs are bending to pressure from prosecutors in analyzing marijuana samples, leading to harsher punishments.
Maxwell Lorincz, 35, was originally charged with a possessions misdemeanor for a small amount of marijuana oil after a Sept. 2014 arrest during an emergency call to his home, according to court papers. He contested the charge, due to his status as a legal medical-marijuana patient. It was dropped in January. But a month later he was charged again – and due to a laboratory finding that the oil could be synthetic THC, it was increased to a felony charge with potential prison time under Michigan law.
Lorincz’s attorney Michael Komorn alleges the lab engaged in perjury, evidence tampering, and even “rampant illegality” in considering the sample synthetic, due to pressure from prosecutors, they contend in the latest court papers filed Oct. 24.
“The Crime Lab was transformed into a Crime Factory which had the direct effect of stripping, in this case Mr. Lorincz, and other patients or caregivers statewide the State authorization to the entitlement to immunity, from arrest, prosecution, or any penalty associated with the medical use of (marijuana),” contends Komorn in the latest motion.
The latest filings, obtained by Forensic Magazine, include emails between lab staff, produced by a Freedom of Information Act request. The emails show that the scientists Michigan State Police Crime Lab found the hash oil was “Schedule I THC” from “origin unknown” – mostly because the analysts contend it showed no visible plant material. Prosecutors then brought the felony charge, based on the finding the THC could be synthetic.
However, the defense attorneys argue that there were multiple other naturally-occurring cannabinoids in the sample which are not psychoactive – and would be pointless to synthesize.
In one of the internal emails, a forensic scientist wrote to his colleagues at the lab that the origin “could not be determined,” and outlined some of the policy repercussions.
“Also, by going out on that limb and calling it THC, you now jump from a misdemeanor to a felony charge,” wrote the analyst. “We’re bringing this up because there seemed to be some concern about uniformity in making these calls.
“Further, it is highly doubtful that any of these Med. Mari. (sp) products we are seeing have THC that was synthesized,” the analyst added. “This would be completely impractical. We are most likely seeing naturally occurring THC extracted from the plant!”
The Michigan Attorney General’s Office and the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s Office did not return calls from Forensic Magazine.
“Any accusation that the Lab and PAAM are directing lab personnel to report crimes without evidence is untrue,” Michael Wendling, the Association’s President reportedly said in a prepared statement.
SPRING LAKE, Mich. – The defense representing a Spring Lake father facing a felony marijuana charge is accusing Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division crime labs of misreporting marijuana intentionally. It’s an allegation with statewide implications.
FOX 17 first reported Max Lorincz’s case in February: He’s a card-carrying medical marijuana patient. He was charged with felony possession of synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) for having a smear amount of butane hash oil (BHO).
“If nobody stands up for this and it just keeps going the way it is, how many more people are going to get thrown under the bus just for using their prescribed medicine?” asked Lorincz. “It’s just ridiculous.”
Lorincz said BHO, which is made from marijuana resins, is a prescription he uses for debilitating pain. On an unrelated medical emergency call for his wife, law enforcement found a smear of BHO in his family’s home. Now, in part as a result of the charges, Lorincz has lost custody of his six-year-old son, restricted to supervised public visits for the past several months.
After FOX 17 reported his case, attorney Michael Komorn at Komorn Law PLLC took Lorincz’s case pro bono.
Komorn said MSP crime labs, along with the Michigan attorney general’s office and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, changed crime lab reporting policies for reporting marijuana back in 2013. Based on documents and emails received through the Freedom of Information Act, Komorn said state laboratories are falsely reporting marijuana as synthetic THC, essentially turning a misdemeanor charge into a felony.
“What is unique about this case is that they [the prosecution] are relying on the lab to report these substances so that they can escalate these crimes from misdemeanors to felonies,” said Komorn.
First charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession, Lorincz refused to plead guilty because he is a card-carrying medical marijuana patient. According to the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, this charge can be dropped through Section 4 immunity, or Section 8 by asserting an affirmative defense.
However, the Ottawa County prosecutor charged Lorincz with felony synthetic THC possession, relying on the state lab report results from his BHO.
According to Lorincz’s crime lab report, technicians deemed his BHO to be “residue, delta-1-Tetrahydrocannabinol, schedule 1,” then the phrase, “origin unknown.”
The state lab scientist testified in an earlier April preliminary exam that they could not determine whether Lorincz’s BHO was natural or synthetic. However, the prosecution charged him with felony synthetic THC possession.
“When you have a laboratory that is looking at a substance and reporting it in a way that makes it a Schedule 1 instead of the marijuana they know it is, it’s creating a crime,” said Komorn.
“This is a lie,” Komorn said. “We have emails within the state laboratory communications indicating this, that they know it’s unlikely, more than unlikely near an impossible, that the patients and caregivers are in a laboratory synthesizing THC. It’s not happening, yet they report it as such.”
Komorn filed motions in Ottawa County Circuit Court in this case earlier this week. His firm is stating that the crime labs and prosecution are reporting “bogus crimes,” turning crime labs into a “crime factory.” He stands firm that the prosecution has no credible evidence to charge or convict Lorincz, especially since the state lab scientist testified they cannot prove the substance to be natural or synthetic.
“The lab as far as I’m concerned has lost its integrity,” said Komorn.
“You can’t play around with this type of thing and make stuff up and create crimes and be influenced by what the prosecutors want you to do and then come to court, take an oath, and expect to be received as an expert in forensic science. You’ve lost that.”
FOX 17 reached out to Michigan State Police for comment. The MSP public affairs department for the office of the director released this statement to FOX 17:
“The ultimate decision on what to charge an individual with rests with the prosecutor. The role of the laboratory is to determine whether marihuana or THC are present. Michigan state police laboratory policy was changed to include the statement “origin unknown” when it is not possible to determine if THC originates from a plant (marihuana) or synthetic means. This change makes it clear that the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results.”
FOX 17 has also reached out to the Michigan attorney general’s office and Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan for comment.
The motions filed in court are calling for an evidentiary hearing Nov. 5.
Posted 7:45 PM, October 28, 2015, by Dana Chicklas
” 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.
