Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

Marijuana dispensaries don’t drive up local crime rates.

They don’t result in abuse of harsher drugs.

They don’t provide the drug to everyone who walks in the door.

Los Angeles medical marijuana attorneys understand that patients in Bakersfield are becoming more vocal about some of these myths, after a number of concerns were raised by nearby residents of newly-opened dispensaries there.

While Los Angeles patients are grappling with concerns of their own – namely, concerns about whether their providers will be able to remain open beyond the March 5 referendum – other communities are wrestling with what it means to have a dispensary in your neighborhood.

This is, of course, more than 15 years after the passage of the Compassionate Care Act of 1996, which resulted in the allowance of marijuana cultivation, distribution and use by those who received a doctor’s prescription.

The problem was that California, being the first state to enact such a measure (there are several more now), didn’t have any blueprint for how such a measure should be regulated. The result was a patchwork of regulations among varying communities. This lack of uniformity, has resulted in the proliferation of these shops in some areas, and even advocates have supported the implementation of tighter controls.

However, we already know that marijuana dispensaries does not result in higher crime.

This became a central issue recently in Bakersfield when a number of residents complained about hypodermic needles littering the alleyway near a few of the dispensaries.

Of course, as anyone knows, marijuana is not delivered to the body intravenously. It’s either smoked or consumed by mouth.

Patients pointed out that similar scenes have been noted in neighborhood where there was no dispensary for miles. Dispensaries don’t create addiction, as marijuana is not addictive in the first place.

Patients also decried statements that the dispensaries had led to numerous people milling about the storefront. Many of them, they contend, simply want to get their medication and get out. Numerous patients aren’t even well enough to travel to the dispensaries, and therefore have their caregivers pick up their medication.

Many patients have expressed an interest in being able to go to a regular pharmacy to purchase their medication. But this is impossible right now for two reasons:

1. Marijuana cultivation requires time and skill, and its not a trade in which pharmacists are trained.

2. It’s still deemed illegal under federal law, and pharmacies, which are governed by stricter standards, don’t want to take the risk.

News teams verified that despite local concerns regarding an uptick in crime, statistical crime data doesn’t actually support that. There haven’t been an increase in robberies, burglaries, harassment or other reported crimes in areas where marijuana dispensaries exist – either in Bakersfield or elsewhere in California.

In fact, Los Angeles has actually seen DECREASING crime rates since the 1996 measure was enacted. Violent crimes were down almost 4 percent, robberies by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by nearly 9 percent, property crimes by almost 1 percent, burglary by 1 percent and vehicle thefts by 4 percent.
Continue reading

California began feeling the heat from the feds starting last October, with the launch of a massive crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries.

Now, Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand U.S. attorneys are setting their sights on neighboring Washington and Colorado, states that have also enacted legislation allowing for medicinal marijuana.

While one would hope this might mean at least a temporary reprieve for Californians, that isn’t likely to be the case.

In Colorado, the Daily Camera reports that dispensaries in that state are enduring its third wave of closures, following letters sent by U.S. Attorney General John Walsh. The attorney general’s office had said it was committed to shuttering all dispensaries that operate within 1,000 feet of a school. The office mailed notice to several dispensaries, indicating if they do not move or close by Sept. 17, they would face criminal prosecution and/or civil repercussions and fines.

This will affect about 10 dispensaries across the state, and all have agreed to comply rather than be subjected to federal raids and seizures.

Similar letters were sent to 23 dispensaries in Colorado back in January, and another 25 were issued in April.

Now, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has issued 23 similar letters to dispensaries in Washington State. These letters take the same tone, and cite the operations’ proximity to schools – and the enhanced federal penalties that accompany this under U.S. marijuana laws.

Federal officials say they expect the dispensaries though to simply close quietly and without a fight.

It’s unclear whether they’ll get their wish, but we do know that pot shop operators in Los Angeles have not been willing to roll over so quickly. In the face of a city ban, many have vowed to stay open – and now they will be able to, at least until March 5, when voters will decide whether to repeal the citywide ban on dispensaries enacted last month.

Washington state has generally been less strict than some other states with regard to its legislation. It allows up to 10 patients to band together in order to cultivate the plant. Other than that, though, regulation is left largely up to local officials.

California has a similar system, and as we’ve seen in recent months, that has led to vastly conflicting municipal rulings, regulations and legal opinions.

The federal governments efforts only further exacerbate and muddy the situation. While marijuana is illegal at the federal level, officials – up to and including President Barack Obama – had vowed not to interfere with marijuana dispensaries that were complying with state and local rules. However, they ended up far overstepping their bounds in this regard.

Dispensary owners in Washington, like those in California, say they are generally at a loss for knowing exactly how they should operate, given that there is no uniformity in the regulation.

Many try to find locations that are outside of that 1,000-feet of schools rule, but that has often proved challenging.

We’ll continue to monitor the federal actions in these states, as it could result in implications for dispensary operators and marijuana patients here in Los Angeles.
Continue reading

Marijuana dispensaries in Riverside are celebrating the victory of a recent decision by a County Superior Court judge, holding that the city’s ban on storefront marijuana sales is unconstitutional, due to state law.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have been closely following the case – one of numerous rulings throughout the state to indicate that such action by municipalities violates the rights of those who seek access to the drug for medicinal purposes.

This ruling further bolsters an earlier one handed down several weeks after another judge determined that the county’s ban on pot shops was not legally enforceable.

Some have indicated that this gives green light to all marijuana dispensaries to operate anywhere and everywhere in unincorporated Riverside County.

But the matter is complicated.

First of all, the most recent decision by Judge John Vineyard, handed down on Aug. 22, isn’t the last word. The city has said it will immediately appeal, reportedly calling the decision, “mind-boggling.”

So far, there are about 12 clinics in the city that are battling injunctions that would shut them down. The city has already shuttered about 35 or so.

One of those facilities, Closet Patient Care, has stayed open while fighting that injunction, which was handed down by city officials in January.

Back in November, the Fourth District Appellate Court in Division Two, which holds jurisdiction in both San Bernadino and Riverside Counties, had conversely determined that local governments could indeed bar medical marijuana dispensaries. Specifically, it permitted the ban in Riverside.

That decision was appealed, and the case is now pending before the state supreme court. Attorneys for Closet Patient Care have said that this new ruling means the November decision has been essentially vacated.

Attorneys for the city have said that isn’t true, and that one court of appeal’s ruling doesn’t automatically cancel out another. Rather, they contend that the matter is simply under review, but that the ban still stands.

These conflicting decisions are reflective of what has been occurring throughout the state: One court upholds a ban, another says it’s unconstitutional and meanwhile, federal authorities continue to crack down.

Although state law allows for use and sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes, per the 1996 Compassionate Use Act (or Proposition 215), both local and federal authorities continue to try to shut down these facilities. It’s estimated that so far, roughly 220 counties and cities have enacted some form of ban on storefront sales. Los Angeles became one of the most recent, with a 14-0 decision that amounted to what it classified as “gentle ban,” allowing for small groups of three patients to cultivate the plant collectively. That decision, too, is being battled on several fronts – including with a newly-filed lawsuit and a petition for a ballot measure to repeal it.

Additionally, federal authorities have taken aim at landlords who rent to the operations, using civil actions such as forfeiture to scare them into kicking out their tenants. Of course, this puts the landlords in a difficult position because they may be violating certain state and local laws by doing so.
Continue reading

Advocates throughout the city are in full force, working to collect more than 27,400 signatures from valid voters in the next few weeks in order to get a referendum on the March ballot that would overturn the city’s medical marijuana dispensary ban.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are supportive of any legal effort that would deliver a blow to the city’s 14-0 vote last month.

In order to qualify for the ballot, the signatures have to be collected in the next three weeks. Officials have said that if those signatures are verified and the measure makes it onto the ballot, it will effectively suspend the city’s ordinance outlawing the dispensaries, at least temporarily and likely until the issue could go before voters in March – barring a decision by the state’s Supreme Court prior to that.

This hope is part of the reason that so many dispensaries have yet to close their doors, despite a recent warning from the city attorney’s office that if they don’t, they’ll face misdemeanor charges, up to six months in jail, and heavy fines of up to $2,500 – each day.

You may see the signature collectors outside of Trader Joe’s or other shopping centers, asking if you support medical marijuana and informing you of the recent City Hall decision and how it will inevitably affect patients.

City leaders have touted this as a compromise or a “gentle” ban because medical marijuana isn’t outlawed entirely. Small groups of three or fewer patients and/or caregivers can band together to grow the drug without fear of prosecution.

However, many have pointed out that this is simply not practical, given that it takes a fair amount of time, skill, space and money to effectively grow the drug. Shuttering all local pot shops is akin to cutting off the supply entirely for the people who need it most – the home-bound and the very ill.

A number of dispensary owners had formed their own union in recent months and had contributed a fair amount of money to the election campaigns of a number of council candidates. Thusfar, it hasn’t helped their cause much, though if the issue does make it on the ballot for March, it could be a hot-button topic in the mayoral primary.

That’s because it will share the ballot with those candidates. Given the controversy that has already surrounded the issue, mayoral candidates are unlikely to escape having to address it. It could be an illustration of just how much political muscle the pro-medical marijuana community has.

It’s not clear exactly how soon we may know whether the measure is on the ballot, but it could offer at least a temporary reprieve by businesses hoping to stay open.

Some storefronts are planning to defy the ban regardless, with some saying they had existed prior to the 2007 city moratorium, while others have said their waiting for rulings on a number of pending court cases. However, neither scenario is going to leave an operation necessarily 100 percent protected from prosecution.

That defiance is noble – and may indeed be effective in the end. However, it’s not a battle your dispensary or collective should take up on its own. Consult with an experienced Los Angeles marijuana lawyer to discuss your rights.
Continue reading

A letter has been sent by the L.A. City Attorney’s Office, ordering some 1,800 marijuana shops to close their doors by Sept. 6, 2012.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know, however, that isn’t likely to be the end of the story. With at least one lawsuit pending, conflicting court rulings across the state and a ballot initiative likely to be posed to voters in November, this fight is far from over.

The letter cites Ordinance No. 182190 – the pot shop ban – and states that it repeals and replaces Article 5.1 of Chapter IV of the Los Angeles Muncipal Code, which previously had regulated marijuana collectives and dispensaries.

The language of the ban states that it is against the law to own, operate, work for, use, rent to or do business with a business for the purpose of cultivating or selling marijuana for medicinal purposes.

The letter further includes the stipulation that landlords and owners could be subject to prosecution, as well as collective operators, employees and patients.

The ordinance excludes individuals in groups of three or fewer who cultivate it for the purposes of providing medicinal marijuana to patients who have a legitimate prescription or their caregiver.

The ordinance officially took effect on June 6, though with this letter, the city is making clear that it will be enforced in the next several weeks.

Previously, the city had regulated and allowed dispensaries. However, those regulations were the subject of several dispensary lawsuits as well. As a result, a trial court tossed five of the provisions in the original ordinance, and therefore, the city felt it could not move forward with the implementation of that regulatory ordinance.

The city had faced additional legal battles from the other side, indicating that the city could not regulate medical marijuana because to do so was to act contrarily to federal laws, which view possession and sale of marijuana as a crime – regardless of the 1996 passage of state law allowing marijuana cultivation, sale and use for strictly-defined medical purposes.

The city had been in talks with a number of dispensaries about potentially exempting them from the ban, the attorney’s office wrote, but those efforts to reach a settlement agreement were ultimately unsuccessful.

The L.A. City Attorneys’ Office has estimated there are nearly 1,100 dispensaries in the city to date, but the letters went out to nearly 1,800 locations. Some of those may have been duplications.

The letter then offers the full text of the ordinance at http://contact.lacity.org/ord/mmo.pdf. The ordinance threatens that unless these organizations comply by the Sept. 6 deadline, they will face a fine of up to $2,500 a day and a misdemeanor charge that could lead to an additional fine of $1,000 and up to six months behind bars.

Still, a number of dispensary operation owners have vowed to defy the ordinance by remaining open.

Consult with an experienced Los Angeles marijuana lawyer before you decide your course of action.
Continue reading

The first of what we can expect to be many lawsuits over the recent marijuana dispensary decision by Los Angeles City Council has been filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

L. A. marijuana lawyers understand this challenge is being brought forth by a local marijuana trade group and a group of nearly a dozen patients. They are seeking to block enforcement of the recently-enacted ordinance that would effectively shutter the vast majority of the city’s storefront marijuana shops by the first week in September.

Of course, the ultimate hope is to overturn the ban and restore rights to the estimated 750 registered dispensaries in the city. (It’s estimated another 200 or so don’t have the proper registration, although registration isn’t likely to matter with regard to the ban.)

It’s likely to be a protracted battle, though, as the move by city council is only the latest in a string of chaotic and conflicting court rulings, regulations and criminal and civil actions that have roped in everyone from critically ill patients and municipal governments to landlords, district courts and federal prosecutors. The hope is to eventually get the issue before the California Supreme Court to get a final and consistent ruling once and for all – possibly as early as next year.

But it’s been a slow march.

The city council, which voted 14-0 last week on the measure, claims the ban does not circumvent Proposition 19, which voters passed in 1996, making California the first state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes because patients can still cultivate the drug to be shared by groups of three. They are classifying this as a “gentle” ban.

The problem with this classification, according to the most recent suit brought by the Patient Care Alliance, is that it essentially amounts to an outright ban because it’s not practical for groups that small – or smaller – to grow medical-grade marijuana. Cultivation of medical marijuana is time and labor-intensive. Would you ask someone with a cold to create their own sinus medication? How about a terminally cancer patient who is home-bound or the person who cares for him or her 24/7?

The suit specifically seeks a temporary injunction from the ban. However, because the group did not request an “emergency action” on the issue, it’s likely not to be heard by the court for another four to six weeks – after which time, the ban will already be officially in effect.

While the city has sent out letters threatening criminal charges to any storefront dispensary that doesn’t close its doors by the deadline, it’s probable that the city won’t act to enforce the measure immediately, given the large number of shops that exist throughout the city – which has the most of any city in the country.

Some shop owners say they will remain open despite the ban because:

1. Some are awaiting or are even parties to pending court challenges that raise the question of whether the city is even allowed to enact such a ban;

2. Some are among the more than 180 locations that were open before the city enacted a moratorium on shops in 2007. They are hoping to be grandfathered in;

3. Some are hoping a ballot referendum will overturn the ban and allow them to save their shops before they are forced to close.

Another option for dispensaries might be to file a request for a temporary restraining order against the city – something dispensary owners should consult with an experienced marijuana lawyer about prior to filing.
Continue reading

Marijuana dispensaries may be in for a fight when it comes to defending their right to remain operational, following a whirlwind month on the legal front.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers stand fully prepared to challenge the illegal ban imposed by the City Council 14-0, particularly on the basis that it runs counterintuitive to the ruling handed down by the Court of Appeals for the 2nd District just weeks earlier regarding L.A. County’s ban.

In that case, County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective, the court ruled on July 2 that the county could NOT ban marijuana collective. In fact, it was deemed unconstitutional because California law “preempted” it. In other words, state law trumps municipal law, and state law is clear that the collective cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes is legal.

Prior to that ruling, for years in fact, the county was fining and ticketing collective based on that ban, which we now know to be unconstitutional.

This ruling has been considered a major victory for pro-pot advocates. Realistically, however, it may be short-lived if the California Supreme Court agrees to take on the case, as it is expected the county will request.

Here’s why:

If the ruling is allowed to stand as is by virtue of the fact that the state’s high court declines to hear it, then it is what we call “good law.” That is, collectives can use it to fight back when municipalities come after them with civil public nuisance actions, which is happening all over the state as we speak.

However, if the state’s Supreme Court takes it on, then collectives will have to abide by whatever THAT ruling is.

The trouble is, we can’t say with any certainty how the California Supreme Court will rule. We do know that the justices are reviewing a number of other key medicinal marijuana cases, and we might expect movement on the issue by the state’s high court in the next year or so.

If the court decides not to rule on it, we can take that as a good indicator that they agree with the decision of the lower appellate court. If that is the case, the county has said it will return to the practice in place prior to the ban, which was to allow collectives to operate, on the condition that they first successfully obtained a certificate of occupancy from the county.

The one concern we have here is that a number of our clients personally have applied for this certificate, and have either been outright denied or are continuing to wait on “processing.”

“Presently, they are fining collectives and landlords who lease to dispensaries,” said Damian Nassiri, Esq. of the Cannabis Law Group in Los Angeles. “However, we are unaware of any lawsuits filed by the county to actually collect on the tickets.”

So it was in this context that city council members became determined to act rashly yet again!

What we expect in the coming months is that a number of local collectives will begin filing their own lawsuits in order to challenge the ban, based on the decision regarding the county.

Up until now, the city has been taking advantage of scare tactics that include cease and desist letters to both collectives and landlords threatening both civil and criminal action.

But the fact of the matter is, it’s highly doubtful that the city can do much more, given the obscene costs that would be associated with filing hundreds of civil lawsuits.

By most estimations, it seems likely that the state’s Supreme Court is going to side with collectives in that bans are unconstitutional, though cities will probably be given the right to impose more reasonable restrictions.

However, operative collectives along those lines has already been ruled a violation of federal law as municipalities would be put in the position of regulating what’s illegal under federal statute.

And so it goes.

“If enough tax payers’ money is wasted on litigation,” Nassiri said, “maybe at some point down the road, the City will be convinced to act sensible medical marijuana collective regulations.”
Continue reading

New federal data indicates that the number of live marijuana plants seized by federal agents has dropped significantly in California and across the country, while seizure of harvested and processed marijuana has doubled.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers believe this points to a very clear trend: Fewer plants are being grown here, where they can be watched and regulated, and instead are coming from just over the border in Mexico, where sales fund violent drug cartels.

California, which typically claims the title of the most plants eradicated in any state, saw a nearly 47 percent decrease in seizure of marijuana plants between 2010 and 2011 (2012 figures aren’t yet available).

Nationwide, federal authorities reported that in 2010, there had been a seizure of more than 10.3 million live marijuana plants. The following year, that number dropped to 6.7 million plants, which represents a decrease of 35 percent.

In all 37 states saw their eradication results fizzle. One noteworthy example is Idaho, where officials saw a 98 percent decrease in live plants seized. It went from nearly 78,000 in 2009 to less than 790 two years later.

In Washington state, officials had eradicated about 600,000 pounds of marijuana in 2009. Last year, they seized just 325,000 pounds.

Officials define “live” marijuana plants as those that have some root structure and are mature enough to produce the buds that contain the drug.

Of course, authorities are crowing that its their own efforts that have caused the decline in growth. But the truth is, there isn’t any less marijuana going around, as evidence by the fact that officials note that the street price of the drug has declined, indicating there is an abundance.

Other factors are more likely at issue here.

One is that a severe, nationwide drought has affected the growth of all plants – marijuana included.

Secondly, local, state and federal officials have been scaling back their forces in recent years due to budget constraints. There aren’t as many raids and stings being carried out as there were when departments were flush with cash. The National Guard program, which had once been the primary operator of the helicopters used for marijuana searches, has had its budget slashed in recent years.

And finally, the crackdown has served to push the legitimate, law-abiding growers out of business. This is why officials have seen the amount of illegal processed weed balloon.

This figure went from about 54,000 pounds in 2009 to nearly 115,000 pounds in 2011. Some of this was taken at the same time that grow operations were busted, but the majority happened in traffic stops and other locations.

For a while, officials said it was a major problem to battle illegal growers operating in forests or on wild lands. These growers would typically employ an irrigation system that tapped into a local water source, but the major problem was that the fertilizers were damaging local environments.

Federal authorities believe a number of these growers have simply relocated their outdoor operations inside in order to avoid detection.
Continue reading

The American Civil Liberties Union has torn into U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy’s statement that city workers could be prosecuted under federal law if voters in Del Mar pass a ballot measure in November to green light medical marijuana dispensaries.

Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers understand that the legal director of the ACLU fired off a letter earlier this month, saying that to threaten such action is not only unjustified, but also a major interference in local legislative matters.

What’s more, Director David Loy says Duffy is off base legally. In fact, a number of court cases have already established that public employees are immune from such prosecution when they are carrying out their administrative duties as required by laws governing state marijuana laws. Loy is pressing Duffy to retract her statement.

It started last month, when lawyers for the city of Del Mar wrote to Duffy’s office asking for clarification on certain legal issues pertaining to the ballot measure. Duffy’s response, issued July 17, is what sparked ACLU leaders to go on the offensive. In that letter, she underscored that marijuana is illegal under federal law, and that anyone who grows, distributes or possesses the substance are in violation of the law.

In response to the ACLU’s criticism, Duffy has stood her ground, saying that the advice she gave to Del Mar leaders is in line with the guidance provided to her by numerous U.S. Attorney’s Offices throughout the nation, as well as the stance of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Duffy and other U.S. Attorneys are the primary driving force behind the medical marijuana crackdown across the state, which has forced thousands of marijuana dispensaries to close. Recently in L.A., it was city council leaders who voted to shut down marijuana shops throughout the city, though the measure still allows for patients with prescriptions and their caregivers to grow the plant individually or in co-ops of three.

In San Diego, the nearest major metropolis to Del Mar, most of the dispensaries have been shuttered. That’s what prompted advocates to collect signatures in order to put the issue of whether to allow marijuana dispensaries to a vote.

City leaders had reached out to Duffy’s office to inquire about whether the city or its employees would face sanctions if they issued business permits or filed paperwork relating to the dispensaries, if the measure did pass.

Duffy had responded that city employees aren’t immune from prosecution under federal law.

Similar letters have been sent to cities in other states as well, in cases where officials were deciding whether to allow dispensaries.

Top legal professors, however, note that there is also federal law that protects public employees, though it was initially written to protect police officers working undercover who may have to consume or possess drugs in order to maintain their cover.

It remains to be seen whether federal authorities would actually move to prosecute city employees who are merely doing their job, though this is not the first time Duffy or her office has caught flak in recent weeks.

California U.S. Rep. Bob Filner recently sent a letter to Duffy’s office calling the crackdown “unwarranted intimidation,” particularly after President Barack Obama in 2008 had pledged not to circumvent state medical marijuana laws.
Continue reading

Both sides of the political aisle are coming together at the federal level to increase protections for medical marijuana patients who are prosecuted due to the legal conflict between state and federal government about whether it’s use, possession, purchase and sale is legal.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand it is called the Truth in Trials Act, or H.R. 6134.

It’s sponsored by California Democrat Rep. Sam Farr, but it’s also supported by 18 other co-sponsors (so far), including Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, and Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts.

The measure would allow medical marijuana patients who are licensed by the state to have the right to provide what would be known as an “affirmative defense” if they are prosecuted for a federal marijuana-related offense. This would allow them to show that even if their actions were illegal in the eyes of the feds, they were protected by state law.

The measure also details in quite specific language that all marijuana plants that are legally grown according to state law can’t be seized by the federal government. It would also provide that if marijuana was seized by the government as part of an investigation, the drug would legally be considered property, which would mean federal authorities would have to maintain it rather than destroy it, as is the current common protocol. If the defendant is able to prove the marijuana was grown, obtained and used legally according to state law, authorities would have to return it just like any other property.

The measure comes amid an ongoing crackdown by the federal government against marijuana dispensaries and their landlords.

It’s actually the second time such a measure was introduced. The first time it was debated back in 2003. However, because the federal government is now acting to shut down dispensaries en mass, it appears to have a greater sense of urgency that is prompting more lawmakers to throw their support behind it.

So often we talk about how the dispensaries have been affected by the crackdown. It’s equally important to talk about the approximately 70 medical marijuana patients who have been indicted on federal drug charges since last October, when the push began.

As it stands right now in federal court, medical marijuana providers and patients aren’t allowed to present evidence showing they were complying with state laws. In fact, federal prosecutors are able to exclude all evidence of state law entirely. So someone who is registered, has a physician’s prescription and is growing and purchasing his or her medicine according to the legal standards of the state will be prosecuted the same as anyone else in the country who possesses or buys marijuana.

The majority of those cases end in a plea bargain because they’ve essentially given the defendant nothing to fight.

These individuals are serving sentences even though they were following state law.

Farr was quoted as saying that the federal government has essentially tipped the scales of justice in favor of a conviction by failing to allow a person or provider to present evidence showing they were complying with state law.

“Juries should hear the entire story,” he said.
Continue reading