Friday, June 25, 2010
According to Lance Rogers, Mr. Jackson's defense attorney, "the doctrine of collateral estoppel means that a prior judgment is a bar to a new case based on the same issues. This doctrine is embodied in the Fifth Amendment guaranty against double jeopardy".
Mr. Rogers originally filed this motion on February 11, 2010. At that time, Judge Shore determined that he could not rule on the motion until after a preliminary hearing because it was uncertain what the facts of Mr. Jackson's new case were. According to Mr. Rogers, the new case stems from the 9/9/9 raids and involves the exact same type of activity as Jackson's prior case from 2008. On December 1, 2009, Jackson was acquitted of all marijuana charges in that case.
In his opposition to the motion, District Attorney Chris Lindberg argues that the 9/9/9 case is different because (1) it was a year later, (2) involved a different officer, and (3) Answerdam was using a different form.
Mr. Rogers although having presented a superb defense this morning in court, was disappointed that the Court did not agree with him that these factors do not make the 2009 case any different than the 2008 case.
The trial in Mr. Jackson's case is set for August. Although the community is ready willing and able to stand by Mr. Jackson through a second trial, it is the hope of many in San Diego that the DA's office will realize the tremendous waste of resources and abuse of power trying Mr. Jackson again will cause, and drop the charges.
Get Involved, Get Active, Make a Difference! Visit www.safeaccesssd.org
Join ASA www.safeaccessnow.org