Watch-On-The-Web: Important Medical Marijuana Case Before California Supreme Court

Supreme Court to Hold Special Outreach Session at UC Berkeley Law School
Live TV Broadcast of Oral Arguments on Nov. 3 in Cases Involving Medical
Marijuana, DNA Evidence, and Sex Offender Law
[UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!! California NORML Coordinator Dale Gieringer attended today’s oral arguments and filed this report:
In a remarkable turn of events, both sides  at today’s California Supreme Court Hearing on the Kelly case agreed that the so-called SB 420 quantity limits in Health and Safety Code 11362.77  are unconstitutional when applied to limit patients’ right to a compassionate use defense under Prop. 215.
Instead, they discussed how  the Kelly decision  could be recast so as not to invalidate 11362.77 when used for other purposes: for example, to protect card-holding patients from arrest when they are within the limits.
Michael Johnsen from the Attorney General’s Office admitted that their “position had evolved”  since the Kelly case was first argued, when they had tried to claim that the limits in 11362.77 were constitutional.  Asked by the court why they should even be hearing the case in that event,  Johnsen said that the court should narrow the Appellate Court decision so as to not throw out 11362.77 altogether.
“I have never had the pleasure of getting up in an appellate argument and saying I agree with everything my opponent said,” remarked defense attorney Gerald Uelmen.
Patrick Kelly was originally charged with growing 7 plants and 12 ounces, an amount above the SB 420 limits.  His defense argued that he could not be convicted for exceeding the limits, because Prop. 215 guarantees patients the right to have whatever amount is reasonably related to their medical needs.   The Appellate Court agreed that the limits were an unconstitutional amendment to Prop. 215, and struck down the entirety of 11362.77 as unconstitutional.
Today, both sides agreed that 11362.77 was unconstitutional as applied to Kelly’s case, but that it should be preserved in other situations, where it provides useful guidelines for arrest.  The court’s final decision will be forthcoming in 90 days.] San Francisco—For the ninth year in a row, the California Supreme
Court will reach out to hundreds of students at a special oral argument
session from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, at the
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, at Booth Auditorium,
2778 Bancroft Way, Berkeley.
The educational program is designed to improve public understanding of
state courts and is being held in collaboration with the School of Law.
Law students, university faculty and staff, and dozens of high school
and middle school students are expected to attend.
California Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Berkeley Law Dean
Christopher Edley, Jr., will make opening remarks, followed by a
question-and-answer session between law students and the justices.
California Channel, a public affairs cable network, will broadcast oral
arguments in all five cases to be argued before the court. The network
reaches 6.5 million viewers across the state and will offer a satellite
link to facilitate coverage by other stations. There is no direct link to the webcast yet, but it will be available online at The California Channel under the ‘Live Web’ section, as well as on your local cable TV provider in CA.
11:00 a.m. (Pacific): People v. Kelly (Patrick K.) (and related habeas corpus matter), S164830 concerns the Legislature’s authority to impose quantity limitations on users of “medical marijuana.”

The five cases follow:
10:00 a.m.: People v. Robinson (Paul Eugene), S158528 involves the use
of DNA profile evidence to identify an unnamed defendant in a felony
complaint and arrest warrant.
11:00 a.m.: People v. Kelly (Patrick K.) (and related habeas corpus
matter), S164830 concerns the Legislature’s authority to impose
quantity limitations on users of “medical marijuana.”
1:30 p.m. In re J. (E.) on Habeas Corpus, S156933 and other consolidated
cases involve residential restrictions imposed on persons required to
register as sex offenders.
2:30 p.m.: People v. McKee (Richard), S162823 concerns the validity of
amendments to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, making commitments
indeterminate, instead of for a term of two years.
3:30 p.m.: People v. Lessie (Tony), S163453 involves the legal effect of
a minor’s request to speak to a parent during a police
The Supreme Court has launched an educational Web site for the special
session, which includes detailed summaries and briefs for each case to
be argued, at
Detailed case summaries, with information on the background and legal
issues involved in each case, are attached to this news release and can
be found at .
These materials may be used by students, teachers, and members of the
public to learn more about the five cases that will be argued before the
Supreme Court on November 3, 2009.
The Supreme Court also will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, November
4, 2009, in its courtroom in the Earl Warren Building, Fourth Floor, 350
McAllister Street. Those arguments will not be televised, but they are
open to the public. The court’s calendar for both days is at .
Editor’s Note: News media may request reserved seats through Lynn
Holton at or Susan Gluss at .
Pooling for TV and radio stations will be available near Booth
Auditorium on November 3, 2009.

Click to access NR63-09.PDF

There is no direct link to the webcast yet, but it will be available online at The California Channel as well as on your local cable tv provider. This is on the Cal Channel homepage: “Upcoming Events – November 3, 2009: California Supreme Court Special Public Outreach Session from Berkeley, California”

0 thoughts

  1. you guys should take down that pop up on the main page. every browser on the planet blocks it at this point.

  2. lol usually i scrutinize norml articles and carefully prepare a comment… but im so dam high rite now im gona skip the law class for right now and return when shits less funny.

  3. Let’s talk about how much it hurts our cause when family and friends follow the link from someone’s Facebook page to a NORML article and, fascinated, continue reading even down to comments section, where–and shouldn’t they have known it, hasn’t the government been saying it all along–marijuana advocates will actually brag about being too high to attend their college classes.
    You can come back now; it stopped being funny.

  4. Oh, wait, never mind: you’re not skipping your class. Sorry, I’m an ass who totally misread your comment, and I respect your right to be high.

  5. EDUCATE, EDUCATE, EDUCATE. History rewrites itself; even history books are updated. We need to update the cannabis system because 1939 was long before we had all the information that marijuana is not harmful as once thought and it doesn’t make your aggressive and go out and kill people like I was taught in school. Refer Madness days are gone. The more we educate and get the word out the more pubic acceptance there will be.

  6. We just had the dog squad go through our house for cannabis 2 hours ago. I despise the cops. I would like to be friends with the cops but because of the marijuana prohibition laws I despise the cops.

  7. I hope the citizens of CA aren’t pushing the lawmakers too hard. I mean it’s a precedent just to be able to legally buy marijuana and in order for a strict state like mine to ever consider it three things must happen in CA: (1) Dispensaries must pay taxes ALWAYS and use discretion with regard to their clientele, (2) Smokers need to be mindful of their actions and words e.g. “Dude let’s go score some dope and get fried!”, (3) Don’t try to push too hard too fast-There’s never a need for a profit margin over 40%.

  8. “never a need for a profit margin over 40%” ….WOW!!
    If only more business’ operated under this school of thought. Somebody give #9 a medal!! “Don’t be to greedy in business” and “You can’t rush Perfection” have always been 2 of my favorite standards to strive for(no matter who you are).

  9. As far as I’m concerned I’m a law abiding citizen, except for the fact that I get stoned. Why am I forced to be a criminal?

  10. I watched the beginning of tape 1, and it seemed that he didn’t have any figures at all. Also he seemed to try to minimize any possible savings by saying that police, and prisons would shift any savings to other areas. Isn’t that the point of changing the law, to allow police, and prisons to persue, investigate, and incarcerate more serious crimes, and criminals?

  11. My name is Brian Davis. I found out that I had testicular cancer at age 23. They took out my left testicle, and gave me more radiation than they should have, Now, 20 years later, my soinal cord is losing its myelin, due to the radiation. The ONLY DRUG that has EVER HELPED…then, with the nausea…or now, with the pain…is cannabis.
    In my opinion, we need to stop calling what we use “marijuana”…its a plant, and it deserves to be called by its rightful name…people find it easier to disrespect something that doesnt have a right to exist, and marijuana will always be a “silly, hippy illegal and dangerous drug”. Cannabis sativa L. is REAL, and it has REAL contributions to make to our society. I take 50 micrograms of fentanyl a day and 2 zanax a day, and I can, and have, replaced both of them with cannabis…until I was arrested, and faced 20 YEARS for having 10 CLONES (NO ROOTS)….i went to county jail for 3 months, had to withdraw off of fentanyl and zanax AND receive no treatment for my spinal condition…then I pled guilty just to get out so I could be on probation and get to a doctor…now im back on fentanyl and zanax, because I cant use cannabis….people of america…LAND OF THE FREE…we ARE putting sick people in jail, not for murder, not for robbery, but for deciding FOR THEMSELVES which MEDICINE is best for them…in my case, one that can cause instant death (fentanyly), or one that has never killed anyone…one that can cause you to have seizures in withdrawal so strong that you can DIE (zanax)…or Cannabis…
    We HAVE TO MOVE PAST THIS!..the dawn of a new america is just over the horizon…if we can only SHOW THE ELECTED OFFICIALS that THEY WORK FOR US, AND NO ONE ELSE…not the police, not the alcohol and tobacco lobbies, not the pharmaceutical lobbies…THEY work for US….THe tree of Liberty is choked with the vines of tyranny…and like our forefathers, we have a choice…we can sit idly by, and watch our rights stripped from us like soiled rags, or we can stand up and fight, as one, and take back what is so VERY RIGHTFULLY ours…the RIGHT to put INTO OUR OWN BODIES what WE wish…and to Hell with whoever doesnt like it…….

  12. Part of the fedral debacle is the need to amend the 1961 single convention on narcotics (U.N.),which restricts Cannabis internationally as a narcotic,when Cannabis has been reclassified twice from a hallucnigen to a mild-euphorant,which could for the positive amendment of the Fed law (1937),and effect states constitional rights on this matter inc. dispensaries and raids.I have been in touch with congressman Chuck Shumer on this,and I may recieve an answer/volume mail.This also affects courts ability to sentence youths to drug/alcohol “rehabilitation boot camps”,as well as unfare state paraphanlia laws (N.Y.1000 fine!),which seem to point to a cigerate paper selling campaigne lobby,but while America will allways need the good five cent joint,it creates the most volume of lingering smoke odor to the assist of interdictionists and police.Also,we must guard aganst an “addict registry”as in 19th c british India.

  13. The design for the blog is a tad off in Epiphany. Even So I like your website. I might need to install a normal web browser just to enjoy it.

Leave a Reply