Judge's Gag Order on Marijuana Advocate Bob Newland Raises Questions

Jim Finnel

Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
The gag order imposed by a Rapid City judge on medical marijuana advocate Bob Newland as part of his sentence is an unusual penalty that injects political views over public policy into a legal process, a spokesman for a national criminal-defense association said Friday.

Jack King, director of public affairs and communications for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Washington, D.C., said Judge John "Jack" Delaney took an unusual step in forbidding Newland from taking any public role in the campaign to legalize marijuana for medical uses for one year. The restriction was part of the judge's sentence issued Monday for Newland's conviction for felony pot possession.

Delaney sentenced Newland to a year in jail but suspended all but 45 days, with stipulations including random searches and weekly drug tests and a ban on public advocacy for medical marijuana. Newland could end up serving all or part of the remaining jail time if he violates terms of the sentence.

Delaney lectured Newland on the problems of marijuana use, particularly among youths, and told the outspoken advocate for legalizing marijuana for medicinal use that he was "not going to take a position as a public figure who got a light sentence."

The case was unusual and would be noted by "an entire segment of society," Delaney said.

King said that other than the speech prohibition, the sentence seemed "eminently fair, considering that Newland pleaded guilty to a felony," but he was troubled by the speech restriction in the sentence.

"The judge made it very unusual when it did that," he said. "I don't know if the judge realized that he was imposing his politics on Mr. Newland as a condition of his probation."

King said the order was probably within Delaney's authority. Sioux Falls lawyer Jon Arneson, who represents the South Dakota Newspaper Association, also said the judge likely had the authority to impose the speech limitation at sentencing.

"It's an interesting question and certainly merits some discussion," Arneson said. "But I think you'll find that judges can do about anything they want" in that situation. "Obviously, we're taking civil rights away from people in those cases. And this is one of those civil rights."

Robert Doody, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, said he wasn't prepared to say whether he thought the gag order was legal. But it is unsettling.

"Even if legal, I find it troubling that we're going to take away someone's right to even speak about something," he said. "It would be different if we said you can't speak about how to grow marijuana, or something like that. But this is just advocating for a public measure."

Newland declined by e-mail to comment for this story. His defense lawyer, Robert Van Norman, didn't return a call from the Journal seeking an interview.


News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Rapid City Journal (SD)
Copyright: 2009 The Rapid City Journal
Contact: letters@rapidcityjournal.com
Website: Rapid City Journal | Front |
Author: Kevin Woster
 
how could this possibly be legal??? you can't take away somebody rights protected by the bill of rights and constitution. this has got to be completely illegal and f#&% that judge for even trying to do that.

Peace
 
Yeah but this looks like one of those battles that the defendent would be better off waiting to fight till his probation is over. He got off pretty easy and if he appeals he may end up with a tougher judge who may send him to prison for over a year. You have to pick your battles. Just like Tommy Chong.
 
I certainly never heard of Mr. Newland before the judge threw the spotlight on him. He could have soapboxed the entire year and gotten his message to only a small percentage of those who have heard it because of this idiot judge.

Like we need to thank those TV stations in CA that refused to run a few 30 second spots for the MPP. Had they run them, MPP would have had to pay them, and it would have made a small impression locally. Instead, MPP's ad is broadcast coast to coast for free. They don't have a fraction of the money they'd need to buy the publicity that's resulted.

If our message is indeed righteous, getting it out to the most people at the least cost is the most important thing. I am grateful to the Judge Delany and those 6 network affiliates for helping us do so for free.

Now I hope the ACLU picks up the ball and runs with it. If it can go to the Supreme Court we'll still be hearing about this in 5 years. If he wins, Judge Delany will really have shot himself in the foot if his intent was to keep the message from getting out.

There's also a lot of things behind the scenes Mr. Newland can do to help the cause so he's not even lost to the movement by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Like we need to thank those TV stations in CA that refused to run a few 30 second spots for the MPP. Had they run them, MPP would have had to pay them, and it would have made a small impression locally. Instead, MPP's ad is broadcast coast to coast for free. They don't have a fraction of the money they'd need to buy the publicity that's resulted.
very good point
 
Back
Top Bottom