New Weed Defense -- They Can't Prove It's Cannabis Sativa!

new weed defense -- They Can't Prove It's CANNABIS SATIVA!

Editor's Note: If you or any of your comrades have been hauled off to jail for possession of marijuana lately, take special notice of the story below. It describes a breakthrough new defense for those caught in the act of holding a stash of weed, and can be put to use by you or your attorneys to force a dismissal of possession charges, or even to get old convictions expunged. Since possessing pot is now a high misdemeanor in Ann Arbor, there may be a rising demand for such innovative defense tactics as those described below. And, as long as the Michigan marijuana statutes remain unamended, these tactics do constitute a valid way out for weed smokers from the courthouse and the jail.

Ruby D. Wilcox, a 20-year old Miami woman, sat at the defendant's table in Florida Circuit Court Judge Morphonios Rowe's courtroom, charged with possession of marijuana. Her attorney, Richard Essen, a 34-year old criminal lawyer, approached the bench and admitted that his client had been in possession, as charged. "But," said Essen, "we challenge the prosecution to prove that she was in possession of the species cannabis sativa."

Essen then called Richard Schultes, a Harvard University professor and recognized authority on hallucinogens, and Schultes testified to an astounded courtroom that there was not one species of marijuana, as the law assumed, but at least three and possibly four. After the leaves of the plant are broken, Schultes said, as is the case in 99% of the samples taken from suspects, there is no test known to man that will identify one species from another. The defense was, thus, challenging the police chemists and the prosecutor to prove that the sample taken from Ruby D. Wilcox was specifically cannabis sativa, the only species which is illegal under the law.

The prosecution failed to rise to the challenge, and a verdict of innocent was returned by the jury, and all charges dismissed. It was the perfect pot defense.

"It's my opinion," Essen later told reporters, "that anybody convicted of a marijuana possession charge in the past will have a reasonable chance of setting aside prior convictions, based upon the reasoning that we have only recently become aware of the several species of cannabis." Essen went on to say that even though his defense strategy was structured around a small technicality, it was nonetheless valid because, as he put it, "the laws of the land must be followed to the letter." Although Essen will not admit to being either for or against marijuana use personally, he did say, "I deplore seeing young lives ruined with criminal records for breaking laws based on mass hysteria and misinformation."

The traditional defense in marijuana cases is to argue that either the defendant was searched illegally or that he or she was not in possession at the time of the arrest. As these two defenses are not always sufficient for clearing a defendant, there is little doubt that the imaginative Essen defense will be receiving a lot of attention from attorneys and busted pot puffers around the country.