top
East Bay
East Bay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

California Supreme Court: Live TV Broadcast of Oral Arguments on Nov. 3 in Kelly MMJ Case

by Brett Stone (brett [at] brettstone.com)
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.”

The Court of Appeal held: (1) Section 11362.77 is invalid under California Constitution, article II, section 10, subdivision (c), insofar as it amends, without approval of the electorate, the CUA, adopted by the voters as Proposition 215; and (2) section 11362.77 (and, by extension, the MMP’s identification card scheme) is thereby rendered wholly unenforceable. The Supreme Court granted review to address both of these issues.
California Supreme Court: Live TV Broadcast of Oral Arguments on Nov. 3 in Kelly Medical Marijuana Case

Brett Stone
October 31, 2009


The historic California Supreme Court hearing in Berkeley, California this coming week in the "Kelly case" will be broadcast on California cable television stations live and also streamed online via The California Channel.

This is an important case in medical marijuana law as and is being watched closely by both proponents and opponents of medical marijuana in The Golden State.

Information from The California Supreme Court and California Channel below:


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


Release Date: October 23, 2009


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.

LIVE TELEVISION BROADCAST

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. Local viewing information is available at http://www.calchannel.com/channel/carriage/ .

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 interrogation.

EDUCATIONAL WEB SITE

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 http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/oralarg-briefs.htm.

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 http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/briefs/berkeley-case-synopsis.doc .

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 http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/calendars/documents/SNOVC09.PDF .

-#-

Editor’s Note: News media may request reserved seats through Lynn Holton at lynn.holton [at] jud.ca.gov or Susan Gluss at sgluss [at] law.berkeley.edu .

Pooling for TV and radio stations will be available near Booth Auditorium on November 3, 2009.


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR63-09.PDF


Brett adds: 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"

http://calchannel.com/


More Details:


The California Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing on the People v Kelly case for Tuesday November 3, 2009 in Berkeley. Info from the Supreme Court web site below.


SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR
SPECIAL SESSION — BERKELEY
NOVEMBER 3, 2009

The following cases are placed upon the calendar of the Supreme Court for oral argument at its Special Session at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Boalt Hall, Booth Auditorium, Berkeley, California, on November 3, 2009. (The court also will hold oral argument in its San Francisco courtroom on November 4, 2009.)

BERKELEY SPECIAL SESSION

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009—9:00 A.M.

Opening Remarks: Historic Special Session

Case #2. People v. Kelly (Patrick K.) (and related habeas corpus matter) (S164830)

In 1996, the California electorate approved Proposition 215 and adopted the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), which provides an affirmative defense to the crimes of possession and cultivation of “medical marijuana.” The CUA does not specify an amount of marijuana that a patient may possess or cultivate; it states instead that the marijuana possessed or cultivated must be for the patient’s “personal medical purposes.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5, subd. (d).) This has been construed as establishing “that the quantity possessed by the patient or primary caregiver, and the form and manner in which it is possessed, should be reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.” (People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1549, italics added.)

Under California Constitution, article II, section 10, subdivision (c), a statute enacted by voter initiative cannot be “amended” by the Legislature unless the voter initiative expressly gives the Legislature the right to do so. Proposition 215 did not give the Legislature the right to amend the measure.

In 2003, the Legislature found that “reports from across the state have revealed problems and uncertainties in the [CUA].” (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1, subd. (a)(2).) In response, it enacted the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) (§ 11362.7 et seq.) to “[c]larify the scope of the application of the [CUA] and facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution of these individuals and provide needed guidance to law enforcement officers.” (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(1), italics added.)

Although the MMP did not literally amend the statute that established the CUA (§ 11362.5), the MMP did add numerous new code sections that address the general subject matter covered by the CUA. At the heart of the MMP is a voluntary “identification card” scheme that, unlike the CUA, provides protection against arrest for marijuana possession and cultivation, and related crimes. Under the MMP, persons who suffer from a “serious medical condition” may register and receive an annually renewable identification card that, in turn, can be shown to a law enforcement officer who otherwise might arrest the program participant for possession or cultivation, or other related crimes. An officer must honor the card, and not arrest the person, unless there is reason to believe the card is fraudulent.

Section 11362.77 of the MMP — the statute at issue in this case — provides that a “qualified patient” or “primary caregiver” may “possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana,” and may, “[i]n addition, maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants.” (Id., subd. (a), italics added.) The next two subdivisions of the same section provide qualified exceptions for greater amounts. Subdivision (b) specifies that a patient may “possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient’s needs,” on condition that the patient “has a doctor’s recommendation that” the quantity set out in subdivision (a) is insufficient for the patient’s medical needs.

Subdivision (c) specifies that cities or counties may retain or enact guidelines allowing greater quantities than those set out in subdivision (a).

Section 11362.77 does not confine its quantity limitations to those persons who voluntarily register with the program and obtain identification cards that may protect them against arrest. Instead, the section covers individuals who are entitled, under the CUA, to possess or cultivate any quantity of marijuana reasonably necessary for their current medical needs.

Moreover, although subdivision (b) of section 11362.77 allows possession of a quantity “consistent with the patient’s needs” that is greater than the amount set out in subdivision (a), it affords this protection only if a physician so recommends — a qualification not found in the CUA.

The Court of Appeal held: (1) Section 11362.77 is invalid under California Constitution, article II, section 10, subdivision (c), insofar as it amends, without approval of the electorate, the CUA, adopted by the voters as Proposition 215; and (2) section 11362.77 (and, by extension, the MMP’s identification card scheme) is thereby rendered wholly unenforceable.

The Supreme Court granted review to address both of these issues.

-----

Supreme Court Briefs For Cases To Be Argued on November 3 & 4, 2009

Oral Argument Calendar - Special Session - Berkeley - November 3, 2009 (DOC, 150 KB) -
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/briefs/berkeley-case-synopsis.doc

S164830 People v. Kelly

Petition for Review (PDF, 415 KB) -
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/briefs/S164830/s164830_-_petition_for_review.pdf

Answer to petition for review (PDF, 178 KB) -
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/briefs/S164830/s164830_-_answer_to_petition_for_review.pdf

Opening Brief on the Merits (PDF, 490 KB) -
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/briefs/S164830/s164830_-_respondent%27s_opening_brief_on_the_merits.pdf

Answer Brief on the Merits (PDF, 279 KB) -
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/briefs/S164830/s164830_-_defendant%27s_answer_brief_on_the_merits.pdf

Reply Brief on the Merits (PDF, 100 KB) -
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/briefs/S164830/s164830_-_reply_brief_on_the_merits.pdf

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/oralarg-briefs.htm

--
Don't forget to join my Medical Marijuana News From Brett Yahoo newsgroup for the latest marijuana and medical marijuana news http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/mmjnews/

"No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery"
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network