Court Support Requested – THURSDAY 3/11/2010 - 10am

Court Support Requested – THURSDAY 3/11/2010 - 10am
Department 55 - 220 W Broadway San Diego CA 92101

Today, Wednesday March 10, 2010 all in limine motions were completed and a jury was selected in the medical marijuana trial of People v Davidovich.

On Thursday opening statement will begin from both the prosecution and the defense. This will be the first day in front of the jury and a critical day for supporters to be in court. If you are able to make it to court tomorrow (Thursday 10am), your presence would be both helpful and very much appreciated. The jury should see that this issue affects all of us.

On Tuesday as well as today Bahar Ansari my attorney argued and defended all the motions in limine filed by the prosecution as well as presented the motions in limine from the defense. If it weren’t for her efforts, superb knowledge of the law, and well formulated arguments, I would have been in a very bad position.

The prosecution came in with 9 (nine) motions in limine all with a clear intent to undermine my defense and chance for a fair trial:
Below is a brief description of the motions the DA filed, as well as a summary of how that motion was ruled on by the Judge.

1. Jury Instructions – (an interpretation of the medical marijuana law presented to the jury)
The instructions that the prosecutor filed were a very narrow interpretation of the law, and essentially professed that unless all members are cultivating together, that no other means of association to cultivate was legal. We were able to finally clarify, correct, and agree on a jury instructions this morning shortly prior to starting jury selection. The final instruction is a more accurate depiction of the law which includes a description of what a collective is. The most disturbing part of this was that even though the San Diego DA has posted on their website the AG Guidelines and is urging people to follow them, they proclaimed to the surprise of everyone including the judge in court today during these arguments that “AG Guidelines are not law, and we can never see a case when we would want them to apply”.

2. Medical Defense
The prosecution fought vehemently for hours to have my medical defense excluded and to not allow us to mention anything with regards to medical marijuana laws to the jury. Exactly at 4:20pm it was decided by the Judge that there is evidence of an affirmative defense and that we would be allowed to discuss medical marijuana in front of the jury during jury selection as well as at all other times.

3. Recommendations of Potential Witnesses
Although the prosecution claimed recommendations written on paper and signed by the doctor were hearsay, they filed a motion to require all potential witnesses claiming to be medical marijuana patients to subpoena the written recommendations from their doctors. We had no objection to this.

4. Exclude testimony of Chris Conrad Expert Witness
The prosecution filed to excluded the testimony of Chris Conrad a well known medical cannabis dosages and yields expert who has testified in hundreds of cases. The after hearing relentless arguments from the DA, the judge denied their motion and will allow Mr. Conrad’s testimony.

5. Members List should be excluded
The DA moved to exclude the mention of the list of members of the collective to the jury. This request was also denied by the judge.

6. Character Witnesses
Again the DA argued to exclude the two character witnesses from testifying at my trial. These two individuals have known me for over fifteen years and are prepared and willing to testify about their opinions of my character. The DA argued that their testimony would create an unnecessary burden on the courts time. The judge denied this request and will allow both my character witnesses to testify.

7. Surveillance Video
A request was made by the DA to show the jury the undercover video of the delivery of medicine to Jamie Conlan (Detective Scott Henderson) who was posing as a legitimate patient. We did not object and were ourselves requesting the video be shown, as it clearly shows me verifying his doctor’s recommendation and drivers license.

8. Exclusion of Navy Background
Without hesitation the judge denied this request. I will be allowed to discuss my navy background.

9. Photos of Cultivation Excluded
The Prosecution attempted to exclude pictures of the collective cultivation effort from being shown to the jury. Again the judge quickly denied this request and the jury will be allowed to see ALL the evidence.

At 10:30 this morning forty eight people were brought into Department 55. Michael McCabe my defense attorney invited his friend Charles Roger Khoury Jr. a very experienced and respected attorney to assist with the jury selection process. I must say, it was a very good feeling to have three attorneys representing me in court today all out of the goodness of their heart and for their passionate belief in justice.

Jury selection began with a huge surprise for all of us. We saw the direct result from the efforts of all the medical marijuana advocacy and activism in San Diego pay off, when at least a dozen potential jurors openly voiced their concerns about the current marijuana laws in court for the entire jury pool to hear. One potential juror went as far as to talk about the current situation in San Diego with the lack of clarity in the law and the zoning issues collectives are having. She as well as most of the others who raised concerns were unfortunately dismissed by the prosecution but not before the rest of the jurors were educated. At the end of the day, the forty eight jurors were narrowed down a panel of twelve jurors and two alternates.

On Thursday opening statements begin, as well as the testimony of the Narcotics Task Force detective Scott Henderson who stars in the surveillance video provided by the DA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzYMHgGO_84

Come see Mr. Henderson talk about why how he lied to the doctor to obtain his recommendation and then used it to infiltrate local collectives.
For more information about my case visit www.eugenedavidovich.com

Get Active, Get Involved, Make a difference!

People V. Davidovich – Day 2 of Trial - Court Support

By: Eugene Davidovich

On March 9, 2010 at 9am in Department 55 at the San Diego Superior Courthouse, day 2 of my trial will begin. District attorney Bonnie Dumanis’ office has filed a mountain of motions in limine with the court, all of which will be heard on the 9th in front of Judge So. Motions in limine are requests made by both sides to the Judge before the start of a trial that certain evidence may, or may not, be introduced to the jury.

The heap of in limine motions includes three that I believe are most troubling. The first is a request by the DA that the Judge not to allow me to use the medical marijuana defense, even though an official subpoena from the doctor who recommended the use of medical cannabis to me, was received and accepted into the record by the court at my preliminary hearing months ago. These records clearly prove to the court that I am a qualified patient, which even prompted the Judge at my prelim to say “there is evidence here that Mr. Davidovich is a qualified patient”, yet nothing fazes the prosecutor’s fierce fight.

The second troubling request is to ban the Jury from hearing any details about my four years of honorable military service with the United States Navy, including a request for a complete ban on mentioning that I was in the military at all. After my arrest in February of 2009, the DA’s office had no problem mentioning my military service in the Operation Endless Summer news coverage. Since then, it would seem that she changed her tune and now wants to conceal the fact that I was in the Navy.

Finally, the DA filed motions to exclude two character witnesses from testifying at my trial. These two individuals have known me for over fifteen years and are prepared and willing to testify about their opinions of my truthfulness and character. Theresa Pham the prosecuting DA cited in her filings that to hear from the character witnesses would be an unnecessary burden on the courts time. The DA wants to ensure that nothing positive is said about me and that only their side of the story is heard.

In addition to the disingenuous in limine motions, it would seem that Theresa Pham, Dumanis’ prosecuting puppet, has received a green light to do “anything it takes” to win this case. This green light seems to have allowed the puppet to insult my attorney in court, cry and whine to the judge when a ruling doesn’t go her way and use stalling tactics in an attempt to buy more time to investigate above and beyond the year and a half long investigation already conducted.

I anticipate that on the 9th the DA will pull a few more tricks out of the prosecutorial sleeve to add to the propaganda and misinformation filled, politically motivated prosecution. I ask that members of our community come to court to support me on Tuesday, March 9 2010 in Department 55 at 9am. Witness the relentless, political war being waged against patients in San Diego yourself.

MY STORY

I am a twenty year resident of San Diego, a medical cannabis patient, and a victim of Operation Green Rx and San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis’ brutal ambition to overturn California’s Compassionate Use Act.

After having served four years in the Navy, including two deployments to the Gulf, medals, commendations and an honorable discharge I began to experience serious medical symptoms. With the use of medical cannabis I found relief from the symptoms without the debilitating side-effects I’d experienced with prescription drugs. During my treatment I was able to complete a Bachelors Degree then a Masters in Business Administration, all while building a successful career as a project manager in software development field.

Then, as a result of law enforcement’s lack of training in California law or its unwillingness to follow that law, all collectives dispensing medical cannabis in San Diego were targeted and systematically closed. After reading the newly provided State Attorney General’s (AG) guidelines for cannabis collectives I formed my own collective and began to lawfully cultivate, and collectively distribute medical cannabis to other members of this collective on a non-profit basis according to the state law of Proposition 215, SB420 and the help of the AG guidelines.

In November of 2008, I received a call from a man calling himself Jamie Conlan and asking to join the collective. After a rigorous qualification process where Mr. Conlan presented both a driver’s license and a medical recommendation which he lied to a doctor to obtain, I was duped into allowing his participation.

Some months later, my Mission Valley apartment was raided by an armed narcotics team and I was taken to the police station where I met Conrado DeCastro who revealed Operation Green Rx. I was to discover later through the prosecutor’s discloser that the officers of the operation were targeting collectives from CA NORML’s website and posing as legitimate patients to obtain cannabis recommendations from doctors and then entrap collectives. I was shown two large binders with names and told “we are gonna’ bring all you medical pot people down.” Charged with four felonies, I was taken to jail, for legally providing a patient 120.00 worth of medical cannabis. I didn’t think things could get much worse.

Imagine my shock to find that the DA held a news conference of manufactured lies, touting the success of what they now referred to as Operation Endless Summer, depicting me as a dangerous dealer of large amounts of heroin, meth, marijuana, as well as trotting out the “don’t mess with the military” and the “streets of navy housing” mantra that the San Diego DA Bonnie Dumanis has been maintaining ever since. The evening news quickly picked up the story showing video footage of me at the arraignment hearing, and again listing drugs which did not exist nor with which I had any involvement, let alone charged with selling.



As a result of the false press conference, the police refusal to follow the law and the prosecutor attempting to deny the court evidence that I am a patient protected by medical cannabis laws, I am in the fight of my life. The amount of resources being spent on this case is unbelievable. Aside from the year long NTF investigation, the DA has put together a top notch team of prosecutors and law clerks as well as has recruited the famous anti marijuana activist Steve Reed to testify as an expert against me.

I am represented by attorneys Michael J. McCabe and Bahar Ansari who have been working tirelessly on my case and have provided me with exceptional representation throughout this process. They have been able to both help steer me through the legal system in my trial, as well as protect me from the constant threats and intimidation of the DA for speaking out about my situation.

This video was provided courtesy of the San Diego DA's office as part of the discovery in my case. It shows the delivery of medicine to the undercover officer who earlier had called, provided all his information, and was verified with his physician.



For more information about my case please visit www.eugenedavidovich.com


To get more involved in the community and to help bring this ‘fierce fight against patients’ to an end, join Americans for Safe Access and get involved.

Visit www.SafeAccessSD.org for the latest updates and news about medical marijuana in San Diego, come to the monthly ASA meetings, and get active.

Operation Green Rx must come to an end, and we will help bring it to an end.

Dan Murphy: A patient shares his story

Dan Murphy of San Diego speaks out about San
Diego DA Bonnie Dumanis and her war against medical marijuana. A
patients shares his story:

Tiffany's Struggle for Return of Property

By: Eugene Davidovich

FRIDAY 3/5/2010 @ 1:30 pm - Department 11 (3rd floor) El Cajon Court House - 250 East Main Street El Cajon CA 
Please come out and support Tiffany in her struggle to get her marijuana back by attending the return of property hearing Friday MARCH 5.

Tiffani Kjeldergaard a legitimate medical cannabis patient in January of 2009 was sentenced to probation on a non drug related offense. She continued to use her legal medication and tested positive for THC on drug tests conducted by the probation department until June of 2009, when the probation department decided to stop by her house for a safety check.

As with any medical cannabis patient, they found medical cannabis. Tiffani had some dried cannabis, 7 immature plants, several bongs, pipes, and medical cannabis magazines which the police totaled at $12,000, and at that time sent out a press release announcing a great bust.

The policed seized all the property and took Tiffani to jail on charges of violating her probation.

Although under pressure by the District Attorney and her Public Defender to agree to a plea deal where she would be sentenced to three years in jail, Tiffany did not waiver. She refused to bargain with the DA and fired her public defender that was encouraging her to stay in jail and take a deal.

She maintained to the prosecution and her public defender that it is in fact legal. She conducted her own research at the jail law library, hired a private attorney, presented to him the appropriate cases to cite, and after a court hearing where the evidence was presented, was released from jail. Not only did the judge release her from jail, but he also changed the terms of Tiffani’s probation to allow her to use medical cannabis and ordered her bongs, pipes and marijuana magazines to be returned.

Shortly after her release and change of probation conditions, Tiffani arrived to her probation officers office to present her doctor’s recommendation, only to learn that the probation department thought the recommendation was no good without a San Diego County Medical Marijuana Card to go along with it. She was told that everyone who is on probation and is a medical marijuana patient is now required to also obtain a county card.

Wanting to both be compliant with the system, and to continue to assert her rights as a patient, Tiffani got her county card, brought it back to her probation officer and received the green light to be able to medicate.

On January 19, 2010, Tiffani finally received her bongs, pipes, as well as some medical marijuana literature seized in the raid. After receiving her property back from her probation officer, Tiffany said “This is a huge win for us”.

Now, with the help of her public defender Tiffany returns to court on March 5, 2010 @ 1:30 pm at the El Cajon Court House, located at 250 East Main Street El Cajon CA Please come out and support Tiffany in her struggle to get her marijuana back.

In January of this year San Diego Americans for Safe Access caught up with Tiffani to discuss the details of her situation, the interview with Tiffani can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHTFH7yFyDM

Medical Marijuana Advocates File Lawsuit Challenging L.A. Dispensary Ordinance

Restrictive provisions amount to de facto ban on otherwise legal dispensaries

Los Angeles, CA -- The country's largest medical marijuana advocacy organization, Americans for Safe Access (ASA), filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles today, claiming that certain provisions in a recently adopted regulatory ordinance would shut down virtually all dispensaries in the city. The local medical marijuana law passed by the City Council and signed by Mayor Villaraigosa on February 3rd requires dispensaries to find a new location within 7 days after the ordinance takes effect. In order to comply with the ordinance, dispensaries must be located at least 1,000 feet from schools, parks, libraries, churches and other so-called "sensitive uses," and cannot abut or be across the street from any residence, which excludes almost all commercial areas in the city.

"The dispensary ordinance passed by the Los Angeles City Council might have been reasonable, if not for some onerous provisions," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who filed the lawsuit today. "The requirement to find a new location within 7 days is completely unreasonable and undermines the due process of otherwise legal medical marijuana dispensaries." Despite spending more than two years to develop regulations, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance without maps to show where dispensaries could locate in order to comply with the law.

Among other restrictive provisions, the Los Angeles regulations require that dispensaries "notify the City Clerk within one week after the effective date of this ordinance of their intention to register...at an identified location." The lawsuit's plaintiffs, Venice Beach Care Center and PureLife Alternative Wellness Center, two dispensaries that have operated in Los Angeles since before the city's moratorium, call the 7-day requirement to find a new site unnecessarily prohibitive. Plaintiffs further argue that without the assistance of maps such a requirement is inconceivable.

"We want to work with the city to comply with its regulations, but such unreasonable requirements make compliance impossible," said plaintiff Yamileth Bolanos of PureLife Alternative Wellness Center. "We are more than willing to negotiate a compromise that would cut short costly litigation." The plaintiffs understand that the City of Los Angeles is facing a budget shortfall of more than $200 million and want to strike a fair balance between the concerns of elected officials and the needs of thousands of area patients that rely on local dispensaries. Given the city's economic crisis, many also question the rationale of expensive enforcement action recently taken by the Los Angeles City Attorney.

Over the past few years, more than 40 California localities have adopted ordinances regulating dispensaries. According to advocates, the Los Angeles regulatory ordinance is one of the most recent and most restrictive in the state. Advocates claim that certain provisions in the local law threaten to shut down all of the city's dispensaries and amount to a de facto ban. "The whole point of the moratorium was to study the impact of restrictions like these," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "Unfortunately, a sufficient assessment never happened." The Planning Department was unable to provide residential buffer zone maps prior to the passage of the ordinance and, according to city staff, may never be able to produce them.

Both plaintiff dispensaries have operated since 2006 without any negative incidents, criminal or otherwise, and have established good relations with neighbors. A recent study commissioned by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, comparing the number of crimes in 2009 at the city's banks and medical marijuana dispensaries, found that 71 robberies had occurred at the more than 350 banks in the city, compared to 47 robberies at the more than 500 medical marijuana facilities. Chief Beck observed that, "banks are more likely to get robbed than medical marijuana dispensaries," and that the claim that dispensaries attract crime "doesn't really bear out."

Further information:
Lawsuit filed today by Americans for Safe Access: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/LA_Ordinance_Lawsuit.pdf
City of Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensary ordinance: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2008/08-0923_misc_01-19-2010.pdf