What the hell is this? Evidence hiding.

Factual Questions
1

McWilliams and McCormick were arrested and charged with violating federal drug laws concerning marijuana. The financial support that McWilliams gave to McCormick was used as evidence that he was a drug kingpin(He is actually a successful best selling self help author). At his trial, the judge ruled that McWilliams was not allowed to mention in court that he was terminally ill, that using medical marijuana was (in his opinion) keeping him alive, or that his usage of medical marijuana was legal under California state law. Even as he vomited repeatedly during court proceedings, McWilliams was, under such legal conditions, not allowed to explain his condition or its connection to the charges against him.

On June 14, 2000, McWilliams was found dead in his apartment. The New York Times reported that he had both AIDS and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at the time of his death, but did not explicitly state that either disease directly caused his death. His mother’s house had been used to collateralize the bond on which he was allowed to remain free pending sentencing, a condition of which was that he refrain from using cannabis. For fear of losing his mother’s house, he did so, again forgoing the medication needed to control his symptoms. He had access to Marinol, but it was ineffective for him about two-thirds of the time.[6]
The federal prosecutor personally called my mother to tell her that if I was found with even a trace of medical marijuana, her house would be taken away. [7]

Why would the judge rule that? On what ground does some evidence be hidden from Jury. How in the earth the Jury can find the truth? That’s a relevant truth. Many Jury will be very reluctant to convict if they know about it irrelevant of whether it’s legal or not. Even if they do convict, they will do so with full knowledge of the situation and this will make the controversy come out. Laws, in US, are created in court as much as in legislature.

I’ve heard that one day Irwin Schiff is visited by 2 IRS guy. In front of a lot of reporters and news people, Irwin asked, can what I put in my tax returned be used against me? The 2 IRS guy said yes. Irwin said that well, I appealed the 5th then. The IRS guy just left.

Irwin then go to court (should have gone out of US first before writing books opposing tyrants). The judge ruled that Irwin cannot present the 2 IRS guy as witness. Why? Why not let the jury decide whether it’s relevant or not?

Compared that to the “real crime”. Gary Graham is a robber. He robbed so many people and finally get caught for killing one of his victim. Guess what, the fact that Gary has shot many of his victims, are also squelched from Jury. If the juries had known that Gary Graham has shot so many people, then convicting him will have been much easier. It is, after all, a very relevant fact.

And then there is this rape shield law. The women that cried rape against Mike Tyson have falsely cried rape against someone else too. Let me guess, jury never knew it? It’s one thing to prosecute rapists. It’s another thing to put legal risk on ALL consensual sex because some of the partner may cry rape latter.

What the fuck is going on?

2

IANAL, but it’s possible the evidence was suppressed for whatever reason. As I understand a prosecutor can file a motion to suppress certain bits of evidence for any of a variety of reasons: It was obtained in a roundabout and not entirely legal way (no warrant or outside the bounds of one, for example, so long as the defense can’t argue inevitable discovery), it could prejudice the jury (if it’s a jury trial), or any of a number of things.

Furthermore it is at the judge’s discretion to grant or deny the motion based on both case law and the arguments presented by prosecution and defense.

Without more information it’s impossible to say why the evidence was suppressed.

3

You’ve answered your own question. In fact, your entire set of questions is answered by that second line.

4

Prejudicial evidence is generally excluded from trial. Evidence not directly related to the act in question and the applicable law is inadmissible, not despite its possible influence on the jury, but because of it.

Under federal law, there is no legal use for marijuana. California law and the defendant’s medical condition are irrelevant – they are neither elements of, nor defenses to, the crime of possession. Such things are considered during sentencing, if at all.

Similarly, a defendant’s actions at some other time have NO value in deciding what he or she did at the time in question, unless they are causative – the acts stand alone. Same goes for a witness – there are certain lines of questioning allowed to establish a witness’s reliability, but putting rape victims on trial isn’t one of them.

As for the Schiff business, I can’t imagine what value that exchange is supposed to have had, but then I can’t imagine attaching any value to anything Schiff says. Suffice it to say that it is never the jury’s job to decide what is "relevant’; it is the jury’s job to decide what is TRUE.

5

This is something I’ve never understood. I’ve read of trials where they do let witnesses testify to the defendant’s previous actions. For example, in the Phil Specter murder trial, they had several women testify that he’d brandished guns before them in the past. Certify that would have prejudiced the jury.

The defense admitted that he done those things, but that he’d never fired a weapon at any person.

6

This is something I’ve never understood. I’ve read of trials where the do let witnesses testify to the defendant’s previous actions. For example, in the Phil Specter murder trial, they had several women testify that he’d brandished guns before them in the past. Certify that would have prejudiced the jury.

The defense admitted that he done those things, but that he’d never fired a weapon at any person.

7

This is something I’ve never understood. I’ve read of trials where the do let witnesses testify to the defendant’s previous actions. For example, in the Phil Specter murder trial, they had several women testify that he’d brandished guns before them in the past. Certify that would have prejudiced the jury.

The defense admitted that he done those things, but that he’d never fired a weapon at any person.

8

What likely would have happened if the defendant had just stood up in the court, turned to the jury and shouted “I am terminally ill with AIDS and lymphoma, marijuana controls my symptoms”? A mistrial, surely? The defendant held in contempt?

9

Per my layman’s understanding, I think it’s more of a gray area than you make it out to be here.

10

Jury nullification is a different issue from the admissibility of evidence. If there’s any objection to evidence being admitted, it’s decided by the judge, often in the absence of the jury. If the judge decides evidence is not relevant, it is not called, and the jury never gets to hear it.

Once evidence is admitted by the judge, it then becomes the duty of the jury to determine what weight to give to it, in reaching their conclusion.

11

Probably not a mistrial. The jury would be directed to ignore whatever they had just heard, and the defendant would be held in contempt.

Would the prosecutor have moved for a mistrial? Maybe.

12

Evidence of prior bad acts is normally excluded because it is of marginal relevance and usually extremely prejudicial. However, there are exceptions to that principle, and one of them is where the accused’s prior conduct shows a pattern that is strikingly similar to that alleged in the charge before the court. In that situation, the court may rule that the evidence of past misconduct is of sufficient probative value to outweigh the prejudicial effect of admitting it into evidence.

I didn’t follow the Specter matter, so I don’t know if that’s what happened there, but that’s what it sounds like.

13

I’ve never heard of McWilliams and the wikipedia article and the links from wikipedia (that are not dead) seem to tell only one side of the story. A search shows that he was “charged with conspiracy to grow marijuana, possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, and distributing it.” McCormick already had other charges pending for “cultivating thousands of marijuana plants in a rented Bel-Air mansion.” (supposedly to supply medical marijuana but it’s still illegal)

I don’t see why either person’s personal drug use would be relevant to charges of growing/supplying.

14

The original poster is under the not unusual layman’s misapprehension that a trial is a situation where all “evidence” is dumped out on a table and the fact finder gets to sort through it and decide what to do with it.

One of the more interesting aspects of a legal education is learning the meaning of the words “relelvant” and “probative.” One might wish more lawyers learned about the meaning of “material” at the same time, but hey, we can’t have everything, can we? :smiley:

The finder of fact (the jury in jury trials) has a very limited purpose. It exists to tell the judge what happened. In a criminal trial, the basic fact to be determined: did the defendant do the thing(s) he/she is accused of? To decide this, the jury is told what the law defines the crime as, and is given only relevant evidence of that fact. Lawyers take a year-long course in Evidence in law school, so it should be realized that defining what is and or is not valid to present in a trial is not something easily explainable. :wink:

Having said that, the OP’s thinking process is somewhat chaotic and boils down to: hey! the guy had good reason to want to use marijuana, and those damn feds wouldn’t let him say so at trial!! Yeah, well, so what? :shrug:

15

Why would the judge rule that? On what ground does some evidence be hidden from Jury. How in the earth the Jury can find the truth? That’s a relevant truth. Many Jury will be very reluctant to convict if they know about it irrelevant of whether it’s legal or not.

You answered your own question. The use of marijuana for whatever reason is illegal under federal law. What the state of California chooses to do is their business but doesn’t effect the the federal law. The jury is required to follow the law. Introducing information that is irrelevant to the case but which might sway the jury is not a good idea.

As to whether any of this is fair or good, that is a separate debate entirely.

16

On the grounds that it is not relevant and, indeed, that it might be prejudicial.

No, it’s not relevant. The sole relevant question is “Did he do what he is accused of?”

Exactly. It’s prejudicial.

17

Another way of looking at it is this is exactly what the law sought to prohibit.

For example, let’s imagine the state of despair’s legislature wants to reduce gasoline usage, not promote safety–and so they create a speed limit law that says the limit is 55.

Further, the legislature makes a finding that the safe speed on highway X is 85 mph, but writes the statute very clearly-to state that they know it’s safe to drive at higher than 55, but that the speed limit is set at 55, and there shall be a fine for exceeding it. I think we agree that the legislature’s can make such a law.

And in that case, it’s clear why the safe speed on the road shouldn’t be given to the jury. It’s likely to sway the jury to hear that a driver given a ticket for 70mph is driving perfectly safely.

And that it was safe to 70 doesn’t matter-as the hypothetical law was designed to make that a crime whether it was safe or not—it was the very thing the law set out to prohibit.