Defense attorneys for two of three men charged with manslaughter after a killing in Warren say the case should be dismissed after the Macomb County medical examiner took the rare action to remove homicide as the manner of death.
Medical Examiner Dr. Daniel Spitz initially ruled the death of Kenneth “Kenny” Klingler, 24, of Auburn Hills, as caused by another person.
Watching The Video
After viewing related video of the incident Spitz changed the manner of death in January to “indeterminate.” Video shows Klinger could have been run over by one vehicle, and possibly as many as three, as he laid on Mound Road in Warren.
Attorney Michael Komorn, representing co-defendant Chris Twarowski, agreed charges should be dropped and blamed prosecutors and Warren police officials for initially presenting a “false narrative” of the incident to the public and Klingler’s family.
“It’s a huge disservice to the victim’s family by suggesting this false narrative, that they beat him and left him to die,” he said.
Three men remain charged with involuntary manslaughter, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
“I’m very pleased Dr. Spitz was willing to take a second look at this … and had an honest change of mind,” said Robbie Lang, attorney for defendant Christopher Zehnpfennig. But, “I am just shocked why this case continues and has not been dismissed.”
It’s been unfair to the defendants as they all have had trouble getting jobs while the charges are pending, the attorneys said.
Zehnpfennig and Twarowski, both 23 at the time of the incident, reside in Warren. Their co-defendant is Nathan Thomas Domagalski, 25 at the time, of Hazel Park. The trio’s preliminary examination scheduled for last Friday in 37th District Court in Warren was adjourned after Spitz’s amended report was disclosed.
A new date was set for March 25, 2020.
Read the back story and a lot More Here in the Oakland Press
If you have a case that needs one of the top criminal defense attorney’s in Michigan to help defend your freedom and future. Call Komorn Law 248-357-2550 or visit KomornLaw.com to learn more.
Four people charged with marijuana crimes by Republican former Attorney General Bill Schuette will have their charges dismissed by Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel.
“Weak cases and changing laws” were cited as some of the reasons for the dismissals in two of the three marijuana cases pending in Nessel’s criminal division, according to a statement from her office. Those who had their charges dismissed were not “major players” in the cases or lacked sufficient evidence to prove their involvement, her office said.
Even remaining defendants in the three cases may be offered pleas to reduced charges so that Nessel’s office can focus on “truly bad actors,” Nessel said in a statement.
“Juries don’t want to convict people on charges concerning something that is now legal,” she said.
Nessel was a vocal advocate for marijuana legalization while on the campaign trail and received support from the cannabis community. After the November voter-approved legalization of marijuana, Nessel encouraged county prosecutors to stop pursuing misdemeanor possession cases.
After the election, then Gov.-elect Gretchen Whitmer said she would pursue executive action or legislation to free inmates and expunge criminal records for those convicted of marijuana crimes.
Among the charges dismissed were those against Mark and Terra Sochacki and Amanda Amsdill related to dispensaries James and Debra Amsdill ran in 2011 in St. Clair, Tuscola and Sanilac counties. The Sochackis were employees of the Amsdills.
The Sochackis had been charged with felony deliver/manufacture of marijuana, while Amanda Amsdill had been charged with conducting a criminal enterprise.
The charges against James and Debra Amsdill were not dismissed, but could be reduced in the future.
After eight years, two circuit court dismissals and two Court of Appeals dismissals, Amanda Amsdill was happy to hear charges against her were dropped but disappointed her parents weren’t also cleared, Amsdill’s lawyer Paul Tylenda said.
“This is certainly a step in the right direction for Michigan and for the Attorney General’s office in Michigan,” Tylenda said. “I don’t think there was any dispute that the previous attorney general loved to overcharge marijuana issues.”
The Sochackis also were relieved by the decision, but are in some ways “broken” by the long legal process, said the couple’s lawyer Michael Komorn.
“Its been devastating to them,” Komorn said. “They’ve gone through a lot.”
Mark Sochacki currently is serving a prison sentence for 2017 assault and robbery charges in St. Clair County, according to online Michigan Department of Corrections records.
Noelle Lathers, who had been charged with delivery/manufacture of marijuana, also had her charges dismissed from circuit courts in Hillsdale and Jackson counties.
Defendants in a third case involving charges in circuit courts in Genesee and Livingston counties may be offered a plea deal to reduced charges.
Client with medical marijuana card was charged with marijuana possession. Client was assigned a court appointed lawyer and encouraged to plead guilty and accept 3 months of probation. Client hired Michael Komorn for representation and withdrew the plea.
The charge was dismissed.
MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (Initiated Law 1 of 2008)
Title
AN INITIATION of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana; to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to make an appropriation; to provide for the promulgation of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for violations of this act.
Section 4. will present the protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana
Details
Sec. 4.
(a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed a combined total of 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana and usable marihuana equivalents, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the qualifying patient presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the qualifying patient.
(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the primary caregiver presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the primary caregiver. This subsection applies only if the primary caregiver possesses marihuana in forms and amounts that do not exceed any of the following:
(1) For each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process, a combined total of 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana and usable marihuana equivalents.
(2) For each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility.
(3) Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.
(c) For purposes of determining usable marihuana equivalency, the following shall be considered equivalent to 1 ounce of usable marihuana:
(1) 16 ounces of marihuana-infused product if in a solid form.
(2) 7 grams of marihuana-infused product if in a gaseous form.
(3) 36 fluid ounces of marihuana-infused product if in a liquid form.
(d) A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person’s behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.
(e) There is a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver complies with both of the following:
(1) Is in possession of a registry identification card.
(2) Is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.
(f) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation does not constitute the sale of controlled substances.
(g) A physician shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by the Michigan board of medicine, the Michigan board of osteopathic medicine and surgery, or any other business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for providing written certifications, in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship and after the physician has completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient’s medical history, or for otherwise stating that, in the physician’s professional opinion, a patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the serious or debilitating medical condition, provided that nothing shall prevent a professional licensing board from sanctioning a physician for failing to properly evaluate a patient’s medical condition or otherwise violating the standard of care for evaluating medical conditions.
(h) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with marihuana paraphernalia for purposes of a qualifying patient’s medical use of marihuana.
(i) Any marihuana, marihuana paraphernalia, or licit property that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marihuana, as allowed under this act, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be seized or forfeited.
(j) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.
(k) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient’s medical use of marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.
(l) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed the medical use of marihuana under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.
(m) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for manufacturing a marihuana-infused product if the person is any of the following:
(1) A registered qualifying patient, manufacturing for his or her own personal use.
(2) A registered primary caregiver, manufacturing for the use of a patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process.
(n) A qualifying patient shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product or marihuana to any individual.
(o) A primary caregiver shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product to any individual who is not a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process
Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry.
If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana, DUI, Drugs, Forfeiture, Criminal Enterprise, etc. Please contact our office and ensure you’re defended by an experienced lawyer in the evolving laws.
Lead attorney Michael Komorn is recognized as an expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.
Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation 800-656-3557.
The proposed ballot language for marijuana legalization in the state of Michigan appears finished.
It will appear asproposal 1 on the November general ballot.
In April, the Michigan Board of State Canvassers approved a petition to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in the state of Michigan.
After the state legislature failed to take up the petition it would be put on the ballot for citizens to vote.
A proposed initiated law to authorize possession, use and cultivation of marijuana products by individuals who are at least 21 years of age and older, and commercial sales of marijuana through state-licensed retailers
This proposal would:
Allow individuals age 21 and older to purchase, possess and use marijuana and marijuana-infused edibles, and grow up to 12 marijuana plants for personal consumption.
Impose a 10-ounce limit for marijuana kept at residences and require that amounts over 2.5 ounces be secured in locked containers.
Create a state licensing system for marijuana businesses including growers, processors, transporters, and retailers.
Allow municipalities to ban or restrict marijuana businesses.
Permit commercial sales of marijuana and marijuana-infused edibles through state-licensed retailers, subject to a new 10% tax earmarked for schools, roads, and municipalities where marijuana businesses are located.
Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry.
If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana, DUI, Drugs, Forfeiture, Criminal Enterprise, etc. Please contact our office and ensure you’re defended by an experienced lawyer in the evolving laws.
Lead attorney Michael Komorn is recognized as an expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.
Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation 800-656-3557.
In late May, Detroit police, along with federal law enforcement agencies, raided what the media described as a “massive marijuana grow operation.”
It turned out to be Viola Brands a temporary licensed medical marijuana and cannabis company in Detroit that was founded by former NBA player Al Harrington.
It was raided even though they should have known it was legal.
Six people were arrested and charged with felonies. The crop — more than 1,000 plants valued at several million of dollars, 100 pounds of marijuana along with lights, fans and testing equipment, were seized.
U.S. Border Patrol was credited with an assist. A Border Patrol agent who works in “gang intel” and was “embedded” with the Detroit Police Department conducted a “thorough investigation,” and obtained a search warrant, Detroit police Sgt. Gerry Johnson told a local television station.
“This is one of the most sophisticated operations I’ve seen in a long time,” Johnson said.
Viola Brands had a state permit as well as local building permits.
Case Dismissed
On July 31, Komorn Law as well as other defense attorneys got Judge Kenneth King of 36th District Court to dismissed the case “in the interest of fairness.”
According to a defense attorney involved in the case
The Detroit Police apparently forgot — or did not bother — to secure the door to the facility after the raid, allowing burglars to enter and make off with expensive equipment the police did not seize
How did Detroit Police manage to “investigate” and “raid” a “marijuana operation” without figuring out that it was licensed by the city?
Detroit’s building inspection department is owed at least some of the blame. When police called to see if the operation was legitimate — the “investigation” referred to above — Detroit building inspectors gave the wrong answer and said that there shouldn’t have been a grow there.
Detroit building inspectors are digging in their heels, insisting that the grow at Viola Brands was illegal.
In court, prosecutors argued that Viola Brands was licensed only to “sell” at the facility, and not to grow.
“That’s absurd,” said medical marijuana defense attorney Michael Komorn in an interview with the Detroit News. “It’s a semantic issue because I would say everyone would understand that if they’ve been given permission to sell it, of course a medical marijuana caregivers center includes growing and cultivating marijuana.”
Komorn’s question — as well as the many other questions of who might be liable to damages done to Viola Brands during the raid now appears headed to a courtroom.
Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry.
If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana, DUI, Drugs, Forfeiture, Criminal Enterprise, etc. Please contact our office and ensure you’re defended by an experienced lawyer in the evolving laws.
Lead attorney Michael Komorn is recognized as an expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.
Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation 800-656-3557.
In June 2014, Defendants home in Rochester Hills was raided by police. The raid resulted in the discovery of an alleged 3,379 grams of marijuana clippings and 113 marijuana plants. The police also found digital scales. Both defendants were charged in Oakland County with manufacturing 20 or more plants and possession with intent to deliver.
Issue:
Defense brought a motion for dismissal of the case based on the belief that their actions as caregivers and patients were protected under the section 8, Medical marijuana Defense. There are three requirements necessary to prove this defense, but in this case the only contested issue is Rule 8(a)(2).
Rule:
Rule 8(a)(2): The patient and the patient’s primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marijuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marijuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition.
Analysis:
The main issue in this rule is determining what is “reasonably necessary” to provide the patient with an uninterrupted availability of marijuana to treat the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition.
Each of the patients testified to the existence of their serious and/or debilitating medical conditions and to their monthly medicinal needs.
The combined needs of these registered patients was found to be approximately 14 lbs (224 ounces) per month.
It was testified to during the hearing, that out of the alleged 110 ounces of marijuana the police had confiscated, only about 4 lbs (64 ounces) of the plant were actually usable medicine.
Based on the needs of these patients the amount of usable medicine that was found in possession of the caregiver was enough to adequately supply his patients for only 8.5 days!
With respect to the 113 marijuana plants found in the Defendant’s home: Defendant testified that the next harvest would consist of 39 plants that would produce roughly 7.5 pounds (120 ounces) of usable marijuana.
The court concluded on this issue that, given the facts provided:
“the Defendants did not possess more marijuana plants than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marijuana for the purpose of treating and alleviating the debilitating medical condition of Joseph and the patients.”
Prosecution claimed that total amount of plants and marijuana was not reasonably necessary, but backed these claims with no evidence. Instead, Prosecution tried to claim that since there was a significant portion of the plant that had to be thrown away, due to lacking medical benefits, that not all of the plant material produced is “reasonably necessary”.
The court responded to this argument unequivocally:
“common sense dictates that it was necessary for Defendants to grow enough plants, which necessarily includes growing leaves, to acquire sufficient marijuana flower or buds to provide to the patients. The fact that Defendants were essentially essentially forced to discard portions of the marijuana plant tat could not be used to treat patients does not, in this court’s opinion establish that Defendants possessed more marijuana than was reasonably necessary.”
Conclusion: The court found that the defense successfully presented prima facie evidence regarding MCL 333.26428(a)(2). Furthermore, the court found that no question of fact existed. As a result, the court determined that Defendant’s are entitled to a dismissal of their case.
