Press enter after choosing selection

John's Appeal

John's Appeal image
Parent Issue
Day
23
Month
July
Year
1971
OCR Text

JOHN'S APPEAL

The following are excerpts from the Application for Leave to Appeal and the Motion for Bond Pending Appeal filed in the Michigan Supreme Court in the case of the State of Michigan vs. John A Sinclair. By way of clarification, the Application is a summation of John's appeal which outlines its basic points to demonstrate to the Court that the appeal is substantial and deserving of a full hearing. The Bond Motion similarly asserts the substantial nature of the appeal so as to demonstrate that the appeal is not frivolous and is not being made only as a basis for requesting appeal bond.

EXCERPTS FROM THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

*The issues raised on appeal involve meritorious and substantial constitutional questions of the utmost importance to Michigan jurisprudence.

*The judiciary of this state is required to ascertain the true state of facts upon which constitutionally challenged legislation is based. In order properly to apply the law to the facts the court must be "diligent in endeavoring to ascertain the facts." The Court should therefore make findings of fact based upon matters of record and matters judicially noticed, which findings should be documented by citation to authorities relied upon. When such scrutiny is applied to the bases upon which the statutory prohibition of any quantity of marijuana at any place (including the privacy of one's home) is founded, the following findings of fact must be made:

a. Marijuana is not physically addictive and does not cause psychological dependence harmful to the public health, safety and welfare;

b. Marijuana use does not cause crime;

c. Marijuana use does not cause persons to use hard drugs such as heroin;

d. Marijuana use does not cause insanity;

Further, scrutiny to scientific facts reveals that:

e. The possession (and thus use) of alcohol is demonstrably more harmful to the public health, safety and welfare than is the possession and use of marijuana;

Further, all the available data clearly reveals that:

f. Marijuana prohibition has failed.

*The Michigan statute prohibiting the possession of marijuana violates the Equal Protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV and the Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article 1, Section 2, by classifying marijuana (cannabis sativa) as a narcotic drug and treating it in a like manner with heroin and other "hard" drugs to which it bears no rational resemblance, while many other substances, including alcohol, which are far more similar to narcotic drugs than is marijuana, are excluded from this classification and treated far more leniently.

*The Michigan statute prohibiting the possession of marijuana by adults in the privacy of their own home violates the fundamental freedoms and rights to privacy and due process of law guaranteed by U.S. Constitution Amendments I, IV, IX and XIV in that this legislation cannot be proven either necessary to the protection of any compelling state interest or reasonably related to the serving of a legitimate public purpose.

*Defendant's prison sentence of nine and one-half to ten years for possession of two marijuana cigarettes in the privacy of his own home constitutes an inhumane, cruel and unusual punishment in violation of U. S. Constitution Amendments VIII and XIV and Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article 1, Sections 16 and 17.

*This appellate court has the power and the duty to review a sentence of nine and one-half to ten years for possession of two marijuana cigarettes in the privacy of one's home and to reduce such sentence which constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

EXCERPTS FROM THE MOTION FOR BOND PENDING APPEAL

*The issues on Appeal raise substantial and meritorious constitutional questions of first impression that are of the utmost importance to the jurisprudence of this State.

*The constitutional questions posed by the challenge made to the Michigan anti-marijuana legislation led to the empanelment of a Three Judge Panel by the trial court so to hear and decide, prior to trial, these issues; and, it is believed that this was the first time in the history of Detroit Recorder's Court that the constitutionality of a state statute was reviewed by such a panel.

* After ruling adversely to the Defendant on the constitutional questions, the pre-trial judge certified that issues raised involved controlling questions of law as to which there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion.

*Since this Court last had before it the question of bond pending appeal in this cause, a great many facts have come to light which demonstrably point out the legitimacy of Defendant's constitutional claims and it has become widely recognized that the legislation challenged is unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary and that the penal provisions by which JOHN A. SINCLAIR has been sentenced are patently disproportionate to the nature of the offense and excessively harsh.  The Court can and should judicially notice that:

a.  There are new federal legislation which reduces the penalty for possession of marijuana to a simple misdemeanor;

b.  Many states throughout the country have markedly reduced the penalties for possession of marijuana offenses, and many municipalities, in Michigan and elsewhere, have adopted ordinances making marijuana possession a misdemeanor.  (See, for example, Municipal Ordinances in Birmingham, Ann Arbor and East Lansing, Michigan.)

c.   The law challenged herein has been thoroughly discredited, and Defendant herein adopts and incorporates the many factual and legal bases upon which the constitutional claims are grounded as set forth in the Brief in Support of Application for Leave to Appeal filed with this Court on this date.

*Defendant is married and father of two small children.  He has had continuous employment and has resided all his life in the State of Michigan.

*No showing has been made, nor can any showing be made that Defendant will not appear when required to do so; and in point of fact, Defendant was originally charged with an offense which carries, upon conviction, a minimum-mandatory sentence of no less than twenty years' imprisonment, and had he chosen to flee the jurisdiction he would have done so during the two and one-half years he was free on bond prior to trial.

*While on bond pending appeal, Defendant will be employed, earning money to support his family and to pay  for his appeal.  No prejudice can result to the State by the granting of reasonable bond because, if his conviction is not set aside, his sentence of imprisonment can be served, thus not denying the State its right to said sentence.

*After two years' imprisonment, Defendant has suffered, already, consequences greatly in excess of that which is constitutionally permissible; the Appeal in question will still take months for resolution by this Court; and in the interest of justice this Court ought now review again Defendant's claimed entitlement to reasonable bond pending appeal and grant to him such a bond.