Re: Howard Dean on the Drug War

Guido Marx wrote:
> Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Federal agents can raid a grower operating under a city contract in 
> > accordance with state laws for the benefit of people with a medical 
> > need, and then disallow even the mention of those facts in court.

> A lot more than just disallowing the mention was done.  Mr.
> Rosenthal's attorneys were PREVENTED by the presiding judge from
> questioning some of the witnesses.  Instead, the judge himself asked
> the questions.  Obviously - this was to restrain tricky attorneys who
> might ask questions in such a way that the judge would legally be
> required to admit testimony about the details of the work Mr.
> Rosenthal was doing.  However, it seems plain to me that not allowing
> your counsel to cross-examine a witness is a violation of your right
> to due-process.  We'll see what the higher courts say about this
> before too long.

And we may get to see what a Dean DoJ would say about it as
well.  We will *never* get to learn what a Harry Browne or
Ralph Nader DoJ would say because they're never likely to be
in a position of actually getting to implement their agendas.

> > That's exactly the kind of thing the founders of this country went to 
> > war to fight against, isn't it?

> I think the Founders are spinning in their graves...

The Rosenthal trial was very badly handled - a terrible
precedent no matter how you approach the question.  Whether
we like it or not juries DO need to be allowed to hear the
facts pertinent to cases on which they pass verdicts, and
they deserve to know when a defendant is sitting in the
dock because a gang of city council members put him up to
his crime.

--
Brother Nate               Electron Juggler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]     http://php.indiana.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"