|
Home | Legal
Issues | Jason Lauve Case | Videos
| Archives | About
Us | Contact Us | Links
Letter to the Editor from
Boulder DA Stan Garnett After Jason Lauve's Acquittal
Feedback
Letters to the Editor
openforum@dailycamera.com,
letters@coloradodaily.com
District Attorney Stan Garnett
Phone: 303-441-3798
Email: sgarnett@bouldercounty.org
Bcc: info@colorado420.com
Boulder Daily Camera
Letters to the Editor - Aug. 11
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/aug/11/11dcelet/
Context on jury trial
I have heard from many members of the community, on both sides, about
the Jason Lauve case. I thought it might be helpful to the discussion
to provide some context, all of which is in the court records.
Mr. Lauve's house was searched, pursuant to a search warrant issued
by a judge, on June 26, 2008, following a report that there was a substantial
marijuana grow occurring in a home in a residential neighborhood in
Louisville. Though Mr. Lauve presented a medical marijuana license,
an arrest warrant was issued (by a different judge) after the search
revealed marijuana and numerous marijuana plants, substantially in excess
of the presumptive amounts set forth in the Colorado Constitutional
amendment and prescribed on the Colorado Department of Health Web site.
Mr. Lauve was charged on Sept. 19, 2008.
Trial began after standard plea negotiations with Mr. Lauve and his
counsel. The trial court (yet another judge) ruled, twice, after both
the prosecution and defense cases, that there was sufficient evidence
for the case to proceed to the jury. The jury, after a little more than
three hours of deliberations, returned a verdict of not guilty, finding
that the amount of marijuana in Mr. Lauve's home was "medically
necessary" for him to possess, a determination a jury is uniquely
positioned to make. As I have said, jury trials give the community the
chance to speak on important issues. That is what happened in this case.
My office accepts the jury's verdict.
With regard to resources, there were resources involved in the prosecution
of this case but they were not extensive. Two salaried prosecutors presented
three witnesses. The prosecution case took about one half day of court
time.
I am happy to continue discussions with anyone about this case, Colorado's
Medical Marijuana laws, or any other case, in person, by phone at my
office, 303-441-3798 or by e-mail, sgarnett@bouldercounty.org.
STAN GARNETT
District Attorney, Boulder
Boulder Daily Camera
Letters to the Editor - Aug. 12
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13130060
Evidence Wasn't There
A jury of 12 working together in mind and spirit as one common man,
weighed the testimony and the evidence presented by the People and compared
that in detail with the following:
Article 18, Section 14 (Statute 0-4-287), among others, but specifically,
4. (b), "For quantities of marijuana in excess of these amounts
((4) (a) (i) No more than two ounces of a usable form of marijuana;
and (ii) no more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being
mature, flowering plants that are producing a usable form of marijuana),
a patient or his or her primary care-giver may raise as an affirmative
defense to charges of violation of state law that such greater amounts
were medically necessary to address the patient's debilitating medical
condition[tru: cq: ].â
While the People's attorneys performed in an excellent manner, they
did not present evidence against Jason Lauve, beyond a reasonable doubt,
whichthat convinced the jury that Mr. Lauve did not intend to use all
of the marijuana taken from his home during a search and seizure on
June 26, 2008, completely and wholly for his debilitating medical condition.
It is certainly appreciated that the Boulder County District Attorney,
Mr. Stan Garnett, has stated in several articles regarding this case,
that he, "accepts the jury's verdict.â I am not an attorney
and do not know all of the options available to the district attorney,
but I believe that only the judge in the case has the power to vacate
the jury's decision. Mr. Garnett has no choice but to accept the jury's
verdict, and may, at his option, file an appeal, should he believe there
is evidence that the judge legally erred in her handling of the trial.
I have been a member of and chaired dozens and dozens of committee
meetings, not unlike a jury, to know that taking 12 citizens, randomly,
from the county of Boulder, presenting evidence before them, then expecting
them to reconcile all they've seen and heard in court, to draw but one
conclusion.
The eight men and four women of the jury were unbelievably mature,
intelligent, articulate and cooperative with but one desire: To find
the facts in the case of the People v. Lauve and compare that to Colorado
law and to the jury instructions provided them by the court. I was proud
to serve the people of Boulder County with these fine men and women.
ROGER GRADY
Jury Foreman, People v. Lauve,
Niwot
Boulder Daily Camera
Letters to the Editor - Aug. 13
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13046690
Medical marijuana
A waste of resources
I was a member of the jury on the medical marijuana case and beg to
differ with District Attorney Stan Garnett's assessment as presented
in this Open Forum on Tuesday, Aug. 11.
This case was both a waste of taxpayer money and a travesty of justice
that the charges against this man were ever brought in the first place.
First of all, Mr. Garnett's assertion that the jury found "that
the amount of marijuana in Mr. Lauve's home was medically necessary"
is an inaccurate statement. The job of the prosecution was to prove
that the amount in possession was not medically necessary and that Mr.
Lauve was aware that he was in violation of the law. The prosecution
presented absolutely no evidence regarding either point of law. They
brought no witnesses to show that the amount was not medically necessary.
They did not even assert that the amount was not medically necessary.
In fact, they prevented the defense from offering evidence regarding
medical necessity. The prosecution did not even attempt to assert that
Mr. Lauve knew the amount was excessive or suggest that he was doing
anything inappropriate with the "excess."
This jury admired Jason Lauve for standing up to an unfair prosecution.
The physical, emotional and legal costs to Jason Lauve of defending
himself do not seem to be of concern of Mr. Garnett and the cost to
taxpayers? Four full days spent by a judge, two prosecutors, a bailiff,
a clerk, a detective, assorted police officers and 12 jurors! Plus laboratory
time and expense to prove that it was "real" marijuana. All
of us could have spent these four days doing something that actually
involved prosecuting a crime.
D. WALTERS
Erie
----
Health care
Legalize marijuana to pay for reform
A solution to the health care problem: Offer everyone a single-payer
plan based on Medicare. Let anyone who wishes to keep their for-profit
insurance plan. Make sure those insurers have to cover everyone who
applies no exemptions. It won't take long for the American public to
spot a bargain.
And how to pay for this? Legalize Marijuana. The taxes on it will easily
pay for it.
ROSEMARY COOKE
Boulder
Boulder Daily Camera
Letters to the Editor - Aug. 9
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13129868
Medical marijiana Prosecution was mean-spirited
Our new District Attorney Stan Garnett, ran unopposed in the election.
We really don't know him. A prosecutor is elected to do justice and
to have good judgment about where to allocate his resources.
It is upsetting to see that Mr. Garnett chose to use his power to prosecute
a felony charge against a very sick man who was hurting no one and trying
to treat his pain with some low-grade home-grown marijuana, for which
he had a state-issued license.
This prosecution was mean-spirited and totally out of line with the
community priorities. The jurors, after hearing all the prosecution
evidence, ended up hugging the defendant.
At a time when Boulder is enduring our toughest economic times, Mr.
Garnett chose to waste a lot of taxpayer money on an unjust, stupid
prosecution. Twelve citizens had to devote three days of their time
to this abuse of power. Jason Lauve got his marijuana back, but where
does he go to get back the money he had to pay a lawyer? Who compensates
him for the stress of a year-long prosecution where he faced prison
time?
Next thing, Mr. Garnett will be asking the commissioners for more of
our money so he can finance the expenses that come from his poor judgment
and cold heart.
Now that we see who Mr. Garnett is, is he really for Boulder?
DEIRDRE SMITH
Louisville
|
