T
The420Guy
Guest
Apr. 16, 00
Community in Brief Source: San Jose Mercury
****
The former director of Santa Clara County's defunct medicinal marijuana club won a legal skirmish Friday when a state appeals court allowed him to pursue claims that prosecutors brought one major charge against him only because of his role in the medical pot movement. The ruling means lawyers for Peter Baez can gather evidence from the district attorney's office to investigate their selective-prosecution claim.
The San Jose-based 6th District Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 ruling, concluded that Baez had presented enough preliminary evidence to support a more exhaustive inquiry. Baez, the former director of the Santa Clara County Medical Cannabis Center, faces five counts of illegally selling and furnishing marijuana, and charges of grand theft and running a drug house. The appeals court decision deals only with the grand theft charge, which accuses Baez of improperly accepting a federal housing subsidy. Defense attorneys maintain that prosecutors charged Baez for the type of conduct that ordinarily is resolved with an administrative fine. The district attorney's office has not decided whether to appeal Friday's ruling to the state Supreme Court, but denies any bias toward Baez.
© 2000 Mercury Center
Community in Brief Source: San Jose Mercury
****
The former director of Santa Clara County's defunct medicinal marijuana club won a legal skirmish Friday when a state appeals court allowed him to pursue claims that prosecutors brought one major charge against him only because of his role in the medical pot movement. The ruling means lawyers for Peter Baez can gather evidence from the district attorney's office to investigate their selective-prosecution claim.
The San Jose-based 6th District Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 ruling, concluded that Baez had presented enough preliminary evidence to support a more exhaustive inquiry. Baez, the former director of the Santa Clara County Medical Cannabis Center, faces five counts of illegally selling and furnishing marijuana, and charges of grand theft and running a drug house. The appeals court decision deals only with the grand theft charge, which accuses Baez of improperly accepting a federal housing subsidy. Defense attorneys maintain that prosecutors charged Baez for the type of conduct that ordinarily is resolved with an administrative fine. The district attorney's office has not decided whether to appeal Friday's ruling to the state Supreme Court, but denies any bias toward Baez.
© 2000 Mercury Center
