In Pursuit of Truth &
Justice in California
by William F. Buckley, Jr.
The Federal narcomaniacs decided, at some point,
to move in on the California
scene.
Background: In l996, a plebiscite was
conducted. Proposition 215
ruled that a Californian
could take marijuana if
counseled to do so for reasons
of health by his doctor.
That would seem a reasonable decision, by a self-
governing state. But it ran
athwart a federal ruling. It
is that marijuana is a
proscribed substance and that its
use under any circumstances is
therefore unlawful.
California, then, became the legal battleground.
And the Feds walked into a
quandary when the United
States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit last
September authorized a cannabis
club in Oakland to
resume providing marijuana to
patients where there was
medical necessity. In
such cases, said this honorable
court, medical necessity
could be used as a defense
against a court injunction
obtained by the Washington
narcs.
What apparently happened in the past fortnight was
a policy decision to force the
hand not only of
California, but of the Ninth
Circuit. Judge George H .
King of Los Angeles was given
two indictments to try.
Peter McWilliams, an author,
publisher, and poet, and
Todd McCormick, an
entrepreneur. McWilliams and
McCormick were charged with
conspiring to manufacture
marijuana, which indeed is
exactly what they did,
growing 4,300 plants. The
design, said the defense,
was to make these plants
available to the cannabis clubs
to pass the drug along as
authorized by Proposition 215.
The trial was scheduled to begin on November 30.
On the eve of the trial Judge
King decided, so to speak,
to eliminate the Bill of
Rights.
Defense strategy had been to advise the jury of
the reasons the defendants
thought to act as they did.
They would cite Proposition
215, expressing the will of
the citizens of California.
Then they would recite the
medical story.
Todd McCormick has fused vertebra from childhood
cancer treatments. Peter
McWilliams has AIDS and also
an AIDS-related cancer,
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. He
went through chemotherapy and
radiation for the cancer
and then a pharmaceutical
therapy for AIDS. In the
account of Charles Levendosky,
writing in the Ventura
County Star, "The cancer
treatment brought on complete
remission. The AIDS treatment
calls for a mixture of
chemically derived protease
inhibitors and anti-viral
medications in order to prevent
the spread of the AIDS
virus in his body. He
must continue his AIDS treatment
in order to live."
In July l998, federal agents arrested
McWilliams. They put handcuffs
on him, took him to jail,
kept him there for several
weeks, then released him on
bail on the proviso that he
must not use marijuana, an
edict the enforcement of which
called for random urine
tests.
Again in the account of the Ventura County Star:
"McWilliams stopped
smoking marijuana. He now takes the
prescription anti-nausea drug,
Marinol, that he claims
only works about a third
of the time. He vomits much
of his AIDS medications and, by
the fall of l998, the
amount of live AIDS virus in
his blood had reached a
critical stage. McWilliams can
no longer walk any
farther than 50 feed and uses a
wheelchair. All of this
since his arrest."
The judge issued his ruling: The defendants would
not be permitted to advise the
jury of the existence
of Proposition 215, which
presumably would have served
to extenuate the guilt the
prosecution was asserting
(one wonders whether a juror
would have been dismissed
for cause if he/she had voted
for Prop 215?). And, the
jury would not be permitted to
hear the medical record
of the defendants.
McWilliams' attorney would not be
permitted even to tell the jury
that he could not
address certain issues in the
case, or give the reasons
why he could not do so.
So...the defense folded. There isn't much point
in undertaking to defend
yourself is the reasons why you
acted as you did you are
prohibited to bring up.
Obviously the high command of Narcs Inc. feared
that the temptation would be
felt by the jury to
"nullify." That
happens, to use the language of Mr.
Levendosky, "when a jury
deliberately rejects the
evidence of guilt or refuses to
apply the law because it
wants to send a message about a
social issue or because
the result dictated by the law
is contrary to the jury's
sense of justice, morality, or
fairness."
So the fate of Peter McWilliams and of Todd
McCormick is in the hands of
Judge King. Perhaps the
cool thing for him to do is
delay a ruling for a few
months, and just let Peter
McWilliams die.