001
1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF THURSTON
3 )
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
4 )
Plaintiff, )
5 )
vs. ) No. 02-1-00799-0
6 )
MONICA LORRAINE GINN, )
7 )
Defendant. )
8 )
9
PARTIAL VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
10
11
12 BE IT REMEMBERED that on the 12th day of January, 2004,
13 the above-entitled and numbered cause came on for hearing
14 before the Honorable Wm. Thomas McPhee, Judge, Thurston
15 County Superior Court, Olympia, Washington.
16
17 Kathryn A. Beehler, CCR No. BEEHLKA412KG
Certified Realtime Reporter
18 Thurston County Superior Court
2000 Lakeridge Drive S.W.
19 Building 2, Room 109
Olympia, WA 98502
20 (360) 754-4370
21
22
23
24
25
0002
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2
3 For the Plaintiff: John "Jack" Jones
Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
4 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW
Olympia, WA 98502
5 (360) 786-5540
6 For the Defendant: Kevin L. Johnson
Attorney at Law
7 407 Adams Street SE
Olympia, WA 98501
8 (360) 753-3066
- and -
9 Douglas Hiatt
Attorney at Law
10 1218 Third Avenue
Suite 1800
11 Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 262-9699
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0003
1 I N D E X
2 Description Page Reference
3 Argument by Mr. Jones 8
Argument by Mr. Hiatt 13
4 Rebuttal by Mr. Jones 19
Oral Ruling of the Court 20
5 Argument by Mr. Hiatt 24
Argument by Mr. Jones 33
6 Argument by Mr. Jones 97
Argument by Mr. Hiatt 101
7 Rebuttal by Mr. Jones 110
Oral Ruling of the Court 112
8 Request for Stay by Mr. Hiatt 117
Argument by Mr. Jones 122
9 Oral Ruling of the Court 124
10
11 Witness Examination Page Reference
12 Dr. John Walck:
Direct Examination by Mr. Hiatt 35
13 Cross-Examination by Mr. Jones 42
Redirect Examination by Mr. Hiatt 49
14 Examination by The Court 50
Redirect Examination by Mr. Hiatt 51
15 Recross-Examination by Mr. Jones 52
16 Martin Martinez:
Direct Examination by Mr. Hiatt 60
17 Examination by The Court 77
18 Gregory T. Carter:
Direct Examination by Mr. Hiatt 82
19 Examination by The Court 93
20
21
22
23
24
25
0004
1 E X H I B I T S
2 Exhibit Number Marked/Admitted
3 Defendant's Exhibit 9 - copies of three letters 42
4 Defendant's Exhibit 12 - Olympia Medical
Laboratory drug test results 50
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0005
1 January 12th, 2004 Olympia, Washington
2 AFTERNOON SESSION
3 Department 4 Hon. Wm. Thomas McPhee, Presiding
4 APPEARANCES:
5 The Defendant, with his Counsel Kevin Johnson
and Douglas Hiatt, Attorneys at Law;
6 Jack Jones, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
of Thurston County, representing
7 the State of Washington.
8 Kathryn A. Beehler, Official Reporter
9 --o0o--
10 (Whereupon, the following is a partial transcript
11 of proceedings heard in the above-entitled case.)
12 (Whereupon, the following proceedings
were held in open court, outside
13 the presence of the jury:)
14 THE COURT: Please be seated. Welcome
15 back, ladies and gentlemen.
16 MR. HIATT: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Mr. Hiatt, you may not have
18 heard me when I concluded the hearing at noon
19 today or after noon today. I indicated we would
20 have our coats on for this afternoon's session.
21 MR. HIATT: I will be happy to put mine
22 on, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: All right. If you would
24 like to step out and take your sweater off before
25 you do that, you may do that.
0006
1 MR. HIATT: That would be great. I'm
2 not too sure about the temperature in here. I
3 did not hear Your Honor or I would have already
4 done it.
5 Sorry, Your Honor. It turned into a bit
6 of a wrestling match there to get the darned
7 thing off. I apologize for that.
8 THE COURT: All right.
9 Among the issues that we're going to
10 consider this afternoon is the plaintiff's
11 assertion that by reason of her prior conviction,
12 and I guess the fact that the defendant was
13 subject to custody at the time of the charge,
14 that she is disqualified from asserting the
15 defense. Do I understand your assertion
16 correctly, Mr. Jones?
17 MR. JONES: Your Honor, that's correct.
18 THE COURT: All right. You have the
19 burden of persuasion on the defense to the
20 defense, so I'll hear from you first, and we will
21 deal with --
22 MR. JONES: No. Could you mark that,
23 please? I should have said that.
24 THE COURT: -- that argument first.
25 MR. JONES: Your Honor, I have had
0007
1 marked as State's Exhibit No. 8 a certified copy
2 of the Judgment and Sentence entered by Your
3 Honor on April 1st of 2002. Keep in mind that
4 these events took place between April 28th, 2002,
5 and May 14th, 2002.
6 A condition of that Judgment and Sentence,
7 which was for convictions of unlawful manufacture
8 of marijuana and possession with intent to
9 deliver marijuana was that this defendant was
10 precluded -- and specifically, the defendant
11 shall not -- "shall comply with the following
12 crime-related prohibitions: Not possess
13 controlled substances without a prescription,
14 random urinalysis at CCO direction, not associate
15 with those who use, sell, or manufacture
16 controlled substances."
17 Towards the end of that paragraph -- and
18 that's paragraph 4.6 of the Judgment and Sentence
19 entered in Cause No. 01-1-2030-1. In the last
20 sentence there, the conditions says,
21 "The conditions of community supervision
22 or community custody shall begin immediately
23 unless otherwise set forth here."
24 There was no "otherwise set forth" at that
25 time. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the
0008
1 Judgment and Sentence entered on April 1st, which
2 were still in effect on the period of time of
3 April 28th through May 14th, 2002, precluded her
4 from possessing a controlled substance.
5 Counsel has already stipulated that there
6 is no prescription in this case nor could there
7 be a prescription in this case. Therefore, she
8 would be precluded from having marijuana. And
9 the State would assert that this lawful Judgment
10 and Sentence, which was not disturbed or
11 otherwise challenged on appeal or by way of
12 personal restraint petition, which was in full
13 force and effect on the date in question, the
14 period of time in question, would preclude her,
15 even if it was otherwise lawful, from possessing
16 these controlled substances or manufacturing
17 these controlled substances.
18 THE COURT: All right.
19 MR. JONES: And I'd hand that exhibit
20 up to the court.
21 THE COURT: Mr. Jones, I have a couple
22 of questions for you.
23 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: You began by reciting the
25 dates -- events that occurred between April 28
0009
1 and May 14. I'm not aware of the facts in this
2 case that extend earlier than May 14. All I've
3 seen is the probable cause statement. In terms
4 of offer of proof, what is the evidence that you
5 would present that pulls this transaction earlier
6 than May 14?
7 MR. JONES: Your Honor, the detective
8 in this case was made aware of the fact that the
9 defendant was involved in this same type of
10 activity, and shortly thereafter he was contacted
11 directly by this defendant; that is to say,
12 Detective Ditrich was contacted by this
13 defendant, Monica Ginn, and in essence was
14 invited out to where these events took place.
15 What was that date? Do you recall?
16 MR. JOHNSON: The 29th.
17 MR. JONES: And he went out there on
18 the 29th, and he saw all of the items that were
19 later seized. And he had a discussion with the
20 defendant about the items and what was going on,
21 and then he subsequently got a search warrant and
22 then went back, executed that search warrant on
23 May 14th, and again interviewed the defendant
24 after having seized all of these items.
25 THE COURT: All right.
0010
1 MR. JONES: So, it was just the course
2 of the investigation that covered that two-week
3 or two-week plus a couple of day period of time.
4 THE COURT: My second question to you
5 has to do with the Judgment and Sentence that was
6 entered in the earlier case. I have had an
7 opportunity to review that entire file, and as I
8 read that file, the sentencing judge -- and that
9 happened to be me -- on April 1st, 2002,
10 sentenced the defendant to Work Release following
11 the imposition of a nine-month sentence, or the
12 court permitted the defendant to have
13 Work Release to serve that sentence, less the
14 conversion time.
15 The file further suggests to me that this
16 new charge arose at a time when she was on
17 Work Release and as a consequence of the
18 officer's discovery and the filing of this
19 charge, she was administratively revoked from
20 Work Release by the jail and then served that
21 time in jail.
22 Is that consistent with your understanding
23 of how the case proceeded?
24 MR. JONES: Your Honor, that's my
25 understanding, although I'm not sure of how long
0011
1 the jail maintained her in that full custody
2 status, whether she was again allowed to rejoin
3 Work Release. That sometimes happens for these
4 types of violations.
5 THE COURT: Okay. But in terms of
6 assessing this -- the impact of that case on this
7 case, it was not the case that she was merely on
8 community custody. She was really in jail at the
9 time but on Work Release; is that correct?
10 MR. JONES: She was in jail and,
11 according to the terms of the Judgment and
12 Sentence, as is the case with all of our judgment
13 and sentences, the conditions of that community
14 custody went into effect on the day of the
15 Judgment and Sentence.
16 THE COURT: Okay. Now, a prescription
17 has many meanings, I suspect, within the law and
18 has a number of legal implications, both for the
19 patient and the prescribing physician. It seems
20 to me that for purposes of enforcement of our
21 drug laws, the meaning of a "prescription" means
22 a formal written approval by a doctor authorizing
23 a patient to use and consume certain controlled
24 substances in this case. If that's the case, why
25 isn't the diagnosis and authorization given by a
0012
1 physician pursuant to the medical marijuana law
2 tantamount to a prescription as it is used in the
3 conditions of release?
4 MR. JONES: Well, Your Honor, what you
5 did in this case was that you granted my motion,
6 and my motion was my recommendation, which was
7 for prescription. A prescription is a term of
8 art, and a prescription includes dosage, how
9 long, those types of things. The medical
10 marijuana thing is a creature of that statute,
11 and that was not contemplated within my
12 recommendation, and it can't be a prescription.
13 And there was no request by the defense for some
14 broader language that might have included that.
15 THE COURT: Thank you. Who is speaking
16 for the defendant?
17 MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Hiatt, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Mr. Hiatt?
19 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, I think
20 Your Honor's last question is particularly
21 insightful, because I believe that for purposes
22 of analysis or analyzing a doctor's authorization
23 to possess and use medical marijuana for -- I
24 believe for this purpose is the functional
25 equivalent of a prescription.
0013
1 When Your Honor imposes a sentence on
2 someone and tells them they need to get a
3 prescription before they use controlled
4 substances, that's essentially telling them they
5 need the approval of their doctor before they can
6 do anything with controlled substances. And
7 Ms. Ginn got the approval of her doctor. Her
8 doctor gave her this recommendation subsequent to
9 that, and it -- I believe it operates for this
10 purpose the same as a prescription.
11 Since the doctor cannot, by law,
12 prescribe -- all he can do is authorize -- I have
13 to believe that these are functionally equivalent
14 for the court's sentencing purpose. If what we're
15 trying to do is prevent Ms. Ginn from accessing
16 controlled substances without a doctor being
17 involved, to that extent, you know, if we're
18 trying to do that, great; this does that, just
19 like requiring a prescription does.
20 It requires her to go consult with a
21 doctor. It requires her to get the
22 authorization, get the doctor's approval, have
23 the qualifying condition, comply with the
24 statute, do all of those things. If she does
25 that, I would argue that it's identical to a
0014
1 prescription for these purposes. Obviously it
2 can't be. Prescriptions do have other qualities
3 that are different from an authorization, but in
4 the specific situation we're in, I believe that
5 they are the functional equivalent.
6 Second, it would -- it requires -- if she
7 is going to get medical treatment, which a doctor
8 finds is good for her, this is the only way she
9 can do it. It is impossible for her to obtain a
10 prescription. You know, in terms of
11 impossibility, it's inequitable for a court in a
12 sentencing procedure or any other procedure to
13 require of a defendant to accomplish something
14 they cannot accomplish, to take it -- to follow
15 the Judgment and Sentence. I mean, she could not
16 follow your Judgment and Sentence and follow her
17 doctor's advice at the same time.
18 If her and her doctor are conferring and
19 they are going to use medical marijuana to treat
20 her condition, and he's got that right under the
21 statute, then it's the same as a doctor saying
22 you need, you know, a controlled substance, here
23 it is, and writing a prescription which, you
24 know, is allowable because the federal government
25 recognizes this.
0015
1 This does go back to the conflict between
2 the state and federal laws and the fact that
3 doctors' ability to prescribe controlled
4 substances is controlled by federal law. And
5 there have been, you know, a lot of arguments
6 about the difference between a prescription and
7 an authorization.
8 I don't have with me the current copy of
9 the Conant case. And the only copy I have is
10 this 12 pages right here. But Your Honor may
11 remember, Conant was a case --
12 THE COURT: No, I don't remember.
13 MR. HIATT: Well, I would give
14 Your Honor this cite, and I would show it to
15 Mr. Jones.
16 THE COURT: All right.
17 MR. HIATT: I believe Mr. Jones is
18 aware of the Conant case. This is the original
19 Conant case, Your Honor. And if I may just
20 briefly explain. I hand it to you, and I
21 apologize for the form that it's in. That is the
22 original case that was brought by Dr. Marcus
23 Conant down in San Francisco.
24 Dr. Conant maintained a very large AIDS
25 practice with several other doctors in
0016
1 San Francisco, and he was authorizing medical use
2 of marijuana. The federal government started an
3 administrative action through the DEA against
4 Mr. Conant and several other doctors and said,
5 you know, we're going to take away your right to
6 prescribe controlled substances under the Federal
7 Controlled Substances Act, and we're going to
8 take away your DEA authorization number, which
9 every doctor must have in order to write
10 prescriptions for controlled substances.
11 Dr. Conant sued the federal government.
12 This is the result of the first case. And in the
13 first case they went to the district court; they
14 got an injunction to stop the DEA hearings and to
15 stop the doctors from doing that. Since that
16 time that case has gone up to the entire 9th
17 circuit en banc. I don't have that copy of the
18 opinion, but it is consistent. It upholds this.
19 And that case further went up to the Supreme
20 Court.
21 This is the case that the Supreme Court
22 denied review on, denied cert on, thereby
23 upholding the 9th circuit. This case as it
24 stands is good law, and what it stands for is the
25 proposition that a doctor may -- under the First
0017
1 Amendment theories, a doctor may discuss all
2 sorts of patient treatment alternatives with the
3 patient, and the doctor may sign an authorization
4 or otherwise discuss the appropriateness of the
5 medical marijuana use or treatment, but the
6 doctor may not prescribe an amount.
7 The doctor may not help the patient obtain
8 marijuana. The doctor may not tell the patient
9 where the patient can obtain marijuana. All of
10 that is prohibited. But under the First
11 Amendment they are allowed to do this discussion.
12 So, this federal/state overlay which now
13 has been decided because the Supreme Court denied
14 cert -- this conflict between the federal and
15 state laws is what creates our dilemmas here in a
16 simple sentencing issue. So, that is the basis
17 of where we are at, and I think for functional
18 purposes the doctor's authorization prescribes
19 the same as a prescription for the type of evils
20 we are trying to prevent from people we put on
21 sentences with felonies.
22 Additionally, I think -- and that's really
23 the main argument, but additionally I don't see
24 any authority provided by Mr. Jones, nor am I
25 aware of any, and I conducted a very cursory
0018
1 search during the hour-and-a-half we were gone,
2 but I don't see any authority that says that just
3 because you have violated conditions of a
4 Judgment and Sentence, or just because you may
5 have committed a parole violation, that you don't
6 get an affirmative defense in a subsequent court
7 case because of that. I don't see any authority
8 for that, and I don't think that conceptually it
9 just -- I can't see how it would work. It would
10 be like denying a diminished capacity defense
11 because we required treatment and somebody to
12 stay on their meds, and if they went off their
13 meds and committed another crime and I wanted to
14 argue diminished capacity because that's what
15 their medical state was, would you prevent me
16 from arguing diminished capacity in another case
17 even though they violated your order to stay on
18 their meds.
19 I don't see any authority that we can take
20 away an affirmative defense from somebody based
21 on what is essentially a probation violation or a
22 violation of the Judgment and Sentence. I don't
23 see any authority for that, and I don't believe
24 that that would be the proper thing to do in any
25 event. I mean, I just -- but I don't see any
0019
1 authority for that, nor was I able to find any
2 analogous situation.
3 I looked under diminished capacity, or
4 just thinking of other affirmative offenses where
5 this might have come up, but I'm just unable to
6 provide the court with any authority on point
7 here.
8 THE COURT: All right.
9 MR. HIATT: And I think, again, just to
10 reiterate one last time, my strongest argument is
11 the one that Your Honor inquired of Mr. Jones
12 about, aren't they functionally the equivalent,
13 and my answer to that is, yes, of course they
14 are.
15 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Jones,
16 rebuttal?
17 MR. JONES: Your Honor, with all due
18 respect to the arguments that have been made,
19 this is a defendant who was convicted of these
20 very same crimes, of growing this marijuana, of
21 intending to deliver it to someone else. If the
22 court doesn't have authority to limit a convicted
23 criminal defendant's freedom to do what would
24 maybe under other circumstances be lawful
25 behavior, I don't -- then the court must not have
0020
1 any authority.
2 She is saying that her possession was
3 lawful, and if it's lawful, how can it be lawful
4 when it is a direct violation of a court ordered
5 Judgment and Sentence for her violation of these
6 very same laws. There was a particular reason
7 that she was prosecuted and that those very
8 conditions were requested, and we are at that
9 point now.
10 A prescription is a prescription. It's a
11 very straight-forward term. It's a term of art.
12 Counsel concedes that it's a term that is
13 utilized, and it has a very specific meaning, and
14 that it is not present here. It may be -- it may
15 be similar. The term may be similar, but this is
16 not a prescription which has been -- that she has
17 in this particular case.
18 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
19 This is a portion of the plaintiff's
20 motion in limine which would preclude evidence of
21 the medical marijuana defense. That's one
22 portion of it, and it deals with the violation of
23 the conditions of community custody imposed by
24 the court just prior to her arrest for this
25 charge.
0021
1 I am going to deny the plaintiff's motion
2 in that regard on this ground only. I haven't
3 addressed the other grounds yet. And I do so for
4 two reasons: The court posed a question, is this
5 authorization process under the medical marijuana
6 law the functional equivalent of a prescription.
7 Mr. Jones argues that it is not. Clearly it is
8 not exactly equivalent.
9 In some respects one could argue that it
10 is functionally equivalent, but that is not an
11 issue that I need to decide at this point. The
12 case is decided without making that
13 determination, because the issue is decided
14 without the necessity of making that
15 determination.
16 I say that it's not exactly equivalent and
17 may not be functionally equivalent because the
18 authorization process here does not identify the
19 doses to be used, the frequency of the doses that
20 are authorized. All of that is part of a medical
21 prescription that is not present in this
22 authorization process. But more importantly, it
23 seems to me, the issue as to whether or not the
24 defendant violated a condition of community
25 custody is fundamentally different than the issue
0022
1 of whether the defendant has broken or violated
2 state law.
3 State law is that possession, use,
4 manufacture of marijuana is illegal except in
5 particular circumstances relating to the medical
6 marijuana law. The defendant, as a condition of
7 release in the initial case, was told that she
8 could not possess drugs without a valid
9 prescription, and she in this case was apparently
10 unable to present a valid prescription. That
11 constitutes a violation of her sentence. It may
12 constitute a direct violation of a court order
13 and so subject her to the contempt powers of the
14 court, but none of that was necessary, because
15 administratively she was simply revoked from her
16 right to participate in Work Release, at least
17 for a period of time. No other condition was
18 imposed administratively upon her at that time.
19 She had no appearance in court to contest
20 whether or not she validly possessed this
21 marijuana pursuant to the conditions established
22 by the court. Had she done so, there may have
23 been a determination made at that time. Perhaps
24 she did challenge the assertion that she had
25 violated the conditions of community custody at
0023
1 the administrative level.
2 The record does not establish that. But
3 in any event, it does not establish, in my
4 estimation, that she violated the law, which in
5 this case would be that she attempted to possess
6 marijuana pursuant to the medical marijuana
7 exception to the law otherwise prohibiting
8 possession, manufacture, or use of marijuana.
9 Accordingly, I don't conclude that her
10 violations of the conditions of community custody
11 constitute a bar for her asserting the otherwise
12 available defense in the criminal prosecution for
13 that act, and so I deny the motion for that
14 portion.
15 Now we switch to that portion of the
16 plaintiff's motion that asserts that the
17 defendant is going to be unable to submit
18 sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury,
19 that would constitute proof of elements of the
20 defense that she asserts here, and here
21 essentially the burden of persuasion shifts to
22 the defendant to show what she has as evidence,
23 viewed using the standard that I enunciated
24 earlier.
25 Who is going to represent or speak for the
0024
1 defendant in this regard?
2 MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Hiatt is going to be
3 speaking again, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Hiatt would
5 you outline for me the proof that you have to
6 present here and how it relates to the elements
7 required under the law.
8 MR. HIATT: Thank you, Your Honor. If
9 I may suggest something, just briefly, in terms
10 of time management here.
11 THE COURT: All right.
12 MR. HIATT: I noticed that we have the
13 exhibits that were brought over. Mr. Martinez is
14 the gentleman sitting right there in the suit,
15 and he needs to examine the actual marijuana in
16 question they brought over. And I might suggest
17 that that could be accomplished while I am
18 putting Dr. Walck on. I have a prior witness,
19 and I'm just -- I'm very mindful of not wasting
20 the court's time here, and I know it's going to
21 take a couple of minutes for Mr. Martinez to look
22 at that evidence, and I wonder if perhaps the
23 detective and Mr. Martinez can't take a look at
24 that while we are busy with the first couple of
25 things.
0025
1 The order I wanted to go in, Your Honor --
2 THE COURT: Any objection to that
3 proposed procedure?
4 MR. JONES: Your Honor, I would want to
5 have the detective here with me and listening to
6 the testimony.
7 THE COURT: All right. It will wait --
8 MR. JONES: I can't imagine it would
9 take that much.
10 THE COURT: -- until the recess. All
11 right. Go ahead.
12 MR. HIATT: What I intend to do is just
13 outline this real briefly for you, and then we'll
14 put the witnesses on.
15 MR. JONES: Your Honor, do you want to
16 exclude the witnesses or allow them to be here?
17 THE COURT: I'll exclude them. The
18 witnesses should please wait in the hall.
19 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, what I propose to
20 do is to present testimony from -- first from
21 Dr. John Walck, who is Ms. Ginn's primary care
22 provider and was her primary care provider at the
23 time.
24 I expect that Mr. Walck will qualify as an
25 expert. He is a doctor. He is licensed. He is
0026
1 board certified in a couple of different things.
2 I plan to put him on and just ask him some very
3 brief questions and then allow Your Honor to
4 inquire with any questions that you might have.
5 I plan to establish that Monica Ginn was
6 Dr. Walck's patient, that Dr. Walck diagnosed her
7 with a qualifying condition under the statute,
8 and that he, in fact, recommended medical
9 marijuana for Ms. Ginn pursuant to the statute.
10 I'll be offering these letters which were
11 at various times -- there are three different
12 ones here. There are three different
13 authorizations, all three signed by -- well, the
14 first two signed by her primary care provider.
15 The last one is, as well, provided with a
16 signature here (indicating). This is an older
17 form. But I hold -- I would hand -- excuse me --
18 would hand all three up to the court. We -- I'll
19 ask them to mark it as an exhibit when we get
20 Dr. Walck to authenticate it for us.
21 Now, that would essentially, I think,
22 satisfy the part of the statute that requires her
23 to show that she has a doctor's authorization,
24 and the doctor can tell us that she has a
25 qualifying condition. I don't believe the doctor
0027
1 has to disclose what that condition is, but I
2 think he does have to say that there is a
3 qualifying condition and he does find the use of
4 medical marijuana appropriate.
5 I am going to try to ask him some
6 questions about what -- what if any knowledge he
7 has concerning her use and whether he would find
8 that appropriate under the statute, but I can't
9 get into the prescription language. So, that's
10 what I would expect from Dr. Walck.
11 From Mr. Martinez -- so that would provide
12 us with, I think, the doctor's authorization, the
13 medical -- you know, we get rid of that issue
14 there. She has the qualifying -- the magic
15 language that is in Shepherd is in these
16 recommendations. It's a licensed physician,
17 qualifying condition. She complies with all of
18 that.
19 The next issue, in my mind, that we step
20 up to is the 60-day supply issue and whether or
21 not Ms. Ginn possessed greater than a 60-day
22 supply. For that we're going to need Ms. Ginn to
23 testify as to her use, and we're also going to
24 need Ms. Ginn to testify to the best of her
25 knowledge, since I believe it's within her
0028
1 knowledge, as to Mr. Otterson's use, or at a
2 minimum as to what she had agreed, pursuant to
3 the Caregiver Agreement, to provide to
4 Mr. Otterson.
5 She can authenticate the care -- that
6 Caregiver Agreement. Although Mr. Otterson is
7 not here and cannot testify as to his use, she
8 can authenticate the document that designated her
9 the caregiver, and she can testify as to his --
10 what she provided him for use. And his caregiver
11 document has an indication on it of what he was
12 using.
13 I'll have the court take a look at this.
14 I'll have this marked, as well. Excuse me,
15 Your Honor. And also, Mr. Otterson provided that
16 designation. Mr. Otterson also provided his own
17 authorization to Ms. Ginn from his doctor
18 authorizing his use of medical marijuana. And I
19 would offer this as an exhibit, too. It goes
20 to -- we obviously cannot have Mr. Otterson here.
21 We don't have the ability to put his testimony
22 on. But we can testify that this is what
23 Ms. Ginn's agreement with him was, and she was
24 performing her end of it. And I think she's
25 competent, and I think there's foundation there
0029
1 for her to testify to that.
2 I then think that we would call
3 Mr. Martinez. Mr. Martinez is an expert on
4 growing marijuana and on medical marijuana usage.
5 He is the author of a book. He is himself a
6 medical marijuana patient. He himself has
7 personal firsthand knowledge about growing
8 marijuana and has been growing marijuana for a
9 long time. He is here to testify -- to examine
10 the evidence that has been seized. He has a
11 curriculum vitae, as well.
12 He is here to testify to take a look at
13 the medicine that's been seized and identify what
14 is actually usable medicine -- usable marijuana
15 medicine versus stems or leaves or other parts of
16 the plant that may have been weighed that are
17 not -- simply not usable as medicine. They don't
18 have any -- you can't use them. There's no
19 medical value to the stems and the leaves or any
20 of that. It's -- all of the usable marijuana as
21 medicine is contained in the buds of it. And
22 he'll need to examine what's there, and then he
23 can give us an opinion on, you know, how much is
24 there that's usable, how many ounces are usable
25 or what's there that's usable, and then from that
0030
1 we can determine whether or not Ms. Ginn and
2 Mr. Otterson's use corresponds to the amount of
3 marijuana that was seized or whether it is over
4 that or not.
5 The last doctor that I am going to try to
6 get with us here today by phone is Dr. Carter.
7 Dr. Carter is a doctor up at the "U" and works at
8 a clinic down here and does a lot of research on
9 spasticity disorders such as ALS, Lou Gehrig's
10 disease, multiple sclerosis, things like that.
11 He is also an expert on marijuana as medicine.
12 He is doing cutting-edge research at the
13 University of Washington using cannabinoid
14 compounds on mice models, and he's developing a
15 paper that talks about rational dosing guidelines
16 for medical marijuana patients and discusses --
17 and this is an abstract of that paper. It's not
18 in publication yet, so I can't offer it, but I
19 plan to have Dr. Carter discuss the basis for
20 that and his research and his knowledge of what
21 patients are using.
22 Dr. Carter has experimented with ALS
23 patients and medical marijuana and ALS patients
24 and has prescribed medical marijuana for the
25 patients and is aware of the general level of
0031
1 dosing in a wide variety of medical marijuana
2 patients.
3 THE COURT: All right.
4 MR. HIATT: And I would expect that to
5 be more evidence. Your Honor said you were
6 interested in seeing if there was another way to
7 take care of the 60-day supply problem, and this
8 is the only way I was able to think of taking
9 care of that, to have Dr. Carter testify. That
10 is what I expected.
11 THE COURT: I take it from your
12 presentation, then, that you believe that your
13 client qualifies under either the qualifying
14 patient or primary caregiver prong of the law and
15 that the law permits her to qualify under both?
16 MR. HIATT: I believe it does,
17 Your Honor. I don't see any prohibition at all
18 from somebody who is a qualified patient being
19 designated as a caregiver for another qualified
20 patient. My argument there is if each of them
21 has a right to possess the medicine singly, they
22 both have a right to possess it, I think, jointly
23 or at least to grow it together.
24 I think that where the issue -- where that
25 really becomes an issue is in the 60-day supply
0032
1 area as to how much is there. If there's more
2 than is there for one patient, obviously it's
3 because there are two patients involved, and
4 she's the designated caregiver for Mr. Otterson
5 who was using the amount that was on his
6 designation.
7 So, I mean, that's where our problem is
8 there, in terms of the 60-day supply. I view it
9 more as a 60-day supply problem. But I don't see
10 anything on the statute or on the face of the
11 statute that would prohibit that --
12 THE COURT: All right.
13 MR. HIATT: -- from taking place. I
14 just am unaware of anything that would stop that
15 from being legal. I have no arguments -- I have
16 heard no arguments on that and am not aware of
17 any.
18 THE COURT: All right.
19 MR. HIATT: But that's just kind of the
20 general outline of where I think it's going.
21 THE COURT: All right.
22 Mr. Jones, do you have any opening
23 statement here?
24 MR. JONES: Your Honor, just to briefly
25 touch on those things that we touched on in your
0033
1 chambers earlier, that the authorizations in
2 neither of these cases specifies an amount. The
3 authorization in either case is dated. The
4 authorization in Mr. -- what's his name?
5 Otterson? -- Otterson's case specifically has
6 language in it that limits its validity for a
7 six-month period from a date that is not placed
8 on the form, and that in the absence of a
9 designated amount by the physician, there can be
10 no determination about whether the 60-day supply
11 has been met or not met.
12 So there's -- otherwise, it's just up to
13 whoever has it, and they are going to say that
14 they have however much they want to have. So,
15 it's a limitation without limitations. And that
16 the Shepherd case specifically and explicitly
17 says that that is required; that absent that,
18 then that issue cannot be determined, and
19 therefore the defense is not applicable.
20 In addition to that, as you pointed out, I
21 think, we are dealing with not only whether she
22 is a qualified patient but also her caregiver
23 status, and that the statute -- the definitional
24 portion of the statute in the medical marijuana
25 statute at 69.51A.010(2) defines "primary
0034
1 caregiver." It means a person who is 18 years of
2 age or older is responsible for the housing,
3 health, or care of the patient and has been
4 designated in writing by the patient to perform
5 the duties of primary caregiver.
6 Here the evidence will show that this
7 defendant's only contact with him, in terms of
8 being a caregiver, by her own admission, was to
9 provide the marijuana. So, she would not be
10 covered by that portion of the statute, and
11 again, that -- I would harken back to my first
12 argument that you have already ruled on, that
13 that didn't allow her to -- even if it did allow
14 her to have prescription marijuana, it didn't
15 authorize her to have others. But I'm not going
16 to dwell on that.
17 That covers it, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: All right. Call your first
19 witness.
20 MR. HIATT: Thank you, Your Honor. The
21 defense will call Dr. Walck.
22 THE COURT: Please come forward, sir.
23 Stop about there and raise your right hand.
24 / / /
25 / / /
0035
1 Dr. John Walck,
2 called as a witness, having been sworn,
3 was examined and testified as follows:
4 THE COURT: Welcome, and please be
5 seated.
6 Counsel, I don't want to spend a lot of
7 time on matters extraneous to the issue before
8 us, and that is, as you have explained it
9 regarding this witness, the defendant's
10 qualification as a qualifying patient and the
11 notices or authorizations given by this doctor.
12 MR. HIATT: That's the only thing I'm
13 doing, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: All right.
15 MR. HIATT: I have kept this to --
16 truncated to just what I need, I think, for the
17 record.
18 DIRECT EXAMINATION
19 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Dr. Walck, could you state your
20 name and spell your name and give your address
21 for the record.
22 A. Um-hmm. John Walck, W-A-L-C-K. Home address?
23 Q. Business address.
24 A. Business address? 700 Lilly Road in Olympia,
25 98506.
0036
1 Q. What is your occupation?
2 A. Medical doctor.
3 Q. Are you currently licensed to practice in the
4 State of Washington?
5 A. I am.
6 Q. Could you give us an idea of your qualifications?
7 A. Yes. I was -- I graduated from the University of
8 Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, in 1976.
9 THE COURT: Let me interrupt. Are you
10 licensed under either Chapter RCW 18.71 or 18.57?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 MR. HIATT: Sorry, Your Honor. I
13 forgot the RCW number.
14 THE COURT: Move on.
15 MR. HIATT: Thank you.
16 THE COURT: I don't need other
17 qualifications than that to determine whether the
18 elements of the statute could be proved.
19 MR. HIATT: Would Your Honor be
20 accepting Dr. Walck as an expert, then?
21 THE COURT: I haven't heard you ask him
22 for any opinions, and I don't need to address
23 that until you ask him for opinions other than
24 his opinions as a treating physician of this
25 defendant. For that he doesn't need any further
0037
1 qualifications.
2 MR. HIATT: All right. Let me ask
3 Mr. Jones. Are you objecting to his
4 qualifications as an expert?
5 MR. JONES: I haven't heard anything
6 yet. I'll object when I think it is an
7 appropriate time to do so.
8 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Dr. Walck, would you state your
9 qualifications for the record, please.
10 A. A medical doctor, licensed in the State of
11 Washington.
12 Q. Do you hold any board certifications?
13 A. Yes. I'm Board Certified in Family Practice.
14 Q. Did you ever hold any other board certifications?
15 A. Yes. I have been board certified in the
16 addiction -- or the American Society of Addiction
17 Medicine.
18 Q. Okay. What does it require to be board
19 certified?
20 A. As --
21 THE COURT: Let's move on. I know what
22 that means.
23 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Dr. Walck, was Monica Ginn your
24 patient?
25 A. Yes.
0038
1 Q. When did you see Ms. Ginn?
2 A. I don't have the specific dates, but it was in
3 February, March of 2002.
4 Q. Okay. Did you see -- did you do an examination
5 of Ms. Ginn at -- pursuant to her becoming your
6 patient?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. What were the results of that examination?
9 A. Well, I found that she had a medical condition
10 that was debilitating and chronic and that she
11 had used marijuana successfully in the past. In
12 my opinion it had been successful and was
13 treating her condition, and she had a condition
14 that warranted the continued use.
15 Q. So, it is your opinion as an expert that Ms. Ginn
16 suffered from a qualifying condition under the
17 RCW 69.50, which is the medical marijuana
18 statute?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Identifying her as having a qualifying
21 condition, did you recommend medical marijuana to
22 her for that condition?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. Okay. Doctor, would you take a look at those
25 three. Do you recognize those documents?
0039
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. Okay. Can you tell us what those documents are?
3 MR. JONES: Excuse me, Your Honor.
4 Have they been marked? Do they have a number?
5 MR. HIATT: They don't yet. I was
6 going to have him -- see if he recognizes it,
7 first, and I will ask the clerk to mark it for an
8 exhibit.
9 THE COURT: I think they may be what
10 has already been marked as 9. Are these -- are
11 these the documents that you are --
12 MR. HIATT: I believe that's correct,
13 Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: All right.
15 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Referring to what's been marked as
16 Defense Exhibit 9, do you recognize those
17 letters?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Are you the author of those letters?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Could you tell us about what those letters
22 are, and -- starting with the top one and then
23 moving on down to any that would have your
24 signature on them?
25 A. The top one was a letter -- a statement "To whom
0040
1 it may concern" basically spelling out my
2 assessment and my recommendation for medical use
3 of marijuana --
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. -- for this client.
6 Q. All right. Did you send letters to
7 Detective Ditrich indicating that Ms. Ginn was
8 your patient and indicating that her use of
9 marijuana was medical?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. Okay. Do you know if those letters were
12 forwarded to the Prosecutor's Office or not?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Okay. Did you ever hear from Detective Ditrich?
15 Did he ever contact you to discuss those letters
16 with you?
17 A. As I recall he contacted me for some information,
18 but I don't remember specifically that we
19 discussed anything after that.
20 Q. Okay. Doctor, is it still your opinion -- your
21 expert opinion that Ms. Ginn suffers from a
22 qualifying condition?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And it would still be your -- it would still be
25 your recommendation that she use medical
0041
1 marijuana?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Are you aware of any amounts that she may have
4 told you or that you may have become aware of
5 that she may have been using?
6 A. That she was using?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. Yeah. It was about two -- two grams per day.
9 Q. Okay. I know you cannot comment, and I know you
10 can't prescribe, and I know you can't comment on
11 whether an amount is appropriate or not except in
12 a very general way, but does that amount strike
13 you, in your professional opinion, in your expert
14 opinion, as out of line?
15 A. Yeah. I thought two grams a day was reasonable,
16 and I also -- she also advised me that it was
17 stable, so she had been on that same dose for
18 some time --
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. -- which reassured me.
21 MR. HIATT: Thank you very much. I
22 have no further questions, Your Honor. I move to
23 admit Exhibit 9 -- Defense Exhibit 9.
24 THE COURT: Any objection to 9?
25 MR. JONES: No objection.
0042
1 THE COURT: Nine is admitted.
2 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit No. 9
3 was admitted into evidence.)
4 THE COURT: Mr. Jones?
5 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 CROSS-EXAMINATION
7 Q. (By Mr. Jones) Now, referring to your letter of
8 March 26, 2002, you indicate that Ms. Ginn has a
9 medical condition. It's chronic back pain; is
10 that correct?
11 A. Is that the letter we're talking about here?
12 Q. Why don't you look at that letter.
13 A. Yes. Right.
14 Q. Is that correct?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. All right. And that would not be cancer or HIV
17 or multiple sclerosis or epilepsy or other
18 seizure or spasticity disorder, would it be?
19 A. She had spasticity symptoms.
20 Q. Uh-huh.
21 A. But she had none of the other conditions that are
22 listed.
23 Q. Um-hmm. This was for pain -- right? -- for
24 chronic pain?
25 A. This was for pain.
0043
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. Pain and spasticity.
3 Q. And there was that -- that could not be relieved
4 by any other treatment; is that correct?
5 THE COURT: That's not the test
6 exactly, Mr. Jones.
7 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, I'm going to --
8 THE COURT: If you want to state the
9 question in the form of the test in the statute,
10 please do so, because that's what I would be
11 interested in.
12 MR. JONES: Okay.
13 MR. HIATT: Your Honor -- I will wait.
14 I was going to object, but I withdraw that. I'll
15 wait and see where it goes.
16 Q. (By Mr. Jones) In referring to the statute here,
17 there's several -- several bases upon which this
18 can be authorized. Are you familiar with those?
19 A. Not -- not -- list them for me, please.
20 Q. So, you're not familiar with the law?
21 A. I'm not familiar with each specific point there.
22 Q. Okay. And there's three subsections. One of
23 them says "intractable pain."
24 A. Intractable.
25 Q. I don't know if I'm pronouncing that right,
0044
1 "limited for the purpose of this chapter to mean
2 pain unrelieved by standard medical treatments
3 and medications." Would she fit with that one?
4 A. She came to me having been on marijuana
5 successfully, successfully treating her
6 condition. I don't recall specifically whether
7 we discussed whether she had been on other things
8 and had failed them, but in my opinion the
9 medical marijuana was an appropriate therapy at
10 that time --
11 Q. Um-hmm.
12 A. -- for her.
13 Q. And, in fact, she'd been using marijuana for
14 quite some time; isn't that correct?
15 A. That's true.
16 Q. And if I told you that she told the police she's
17 been using it since she was 13, would --
18 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, I'm going to --
19 Q. (By Mr. Jones) Would that surprise you?
20 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, I'm going to
21 object to this line of questioning because I
22 don't believe it's relevant, and I believe it's
23 outside the scope of the testimony that I
24 elicited on direct.
25 THE COURT: Why is it relevant,
0045
1 Mr. Jones?
2 MR. JONES: Your Honor, I believe that
3 she has been using marijuana, uses it a great
4 deal, and she was asking to use it here; that no
5 alternatives were explored with her, and that
6 this physician signed the form that allowed her
7 to, in essence, just keep smoking marijuana. And
8 that's something that she'd been doing for quite
9 some time, some, what, 29 years or more?
10 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
11 The only --
12 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, may I make a
13 formal objection for the record?
14 THE COURT: You have already made it
15 for the record. I'm explaining my ruling here.
16 The objection as to scope of the
17 cross-examination is overruled, because this is
18 impeachment of an opinion, and it is appropriate
19 to go beyond the narrow scope of the basis for
20 the opinion and explore other items. As to
21 whether it's relevant or not, it's sufficiently
22 relevant to overrule the objection. I'll permit
23 you to answer that question, if you can.
24 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Repeat the
25 question, then.
0046
1 MR. JONES: Sure.
2 Q. (By Mr. Jones) Is that something that you are
3 aware of or that would have concerned you?
4 A. I was aware that she'd been using it since age
5 13.
6 Q. Okay. And is that something that would concern
7 you?
8 A. It didn't concern me, no.
9 Q. You had no concern that she may have been using a
10 complaint about back pain in order to get a legal
11 authorization to use marijuana after she'd just
12 been convicted of two felonies regarding
13 marijuana?
14 MR. HIATT: Objection, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: That's argumentative.
16 Sustained.
17 Another question?
18 MR. JONES: Certainly.
19 Q. (By Mr. Jones) So that was not a concern to you
20 is your testimony?
21 MR. HIATT: Objection.
22 A. When I examined --
23 MR. HIATT: Objection, Your Honor. I
24 thought Your Honor just sustained that objection
25 to that question, and here it is in sheep's
0047
1 clothing again.
2 MR. JONES: Let me rephrase it.
3 THE COURT: Rephrase it, please.
4 Q. (By Mr. Jones) So, you were not concerned
5 about -- I'm trying to back up one or two
6 questions back to the since age 13. So, since 13
7 -- your testimony is her use since 13 was not of
8 concern to you.
9 A. No.
10 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, I'm going to
11 object to that as being asked and answered. He
12 has already answered that question.
13 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
14 He answered that he knew about it. He didn't
15 answer whether he was concerned about it or not.
16 A. I already answered that I was not concerned about
17 it.
18 Q. (By Mr. Jones) Okay. Is it ever a concern for
19 you about a patient coming to you and wanting to
20 be authorized to use marijuana, that it might be
21 a ruse in some way? Is that ever a concern to
22 you?
23 A. That is a concern to me.
24 Q. And how is it that you -- is there a way that you
25 can kind of root out those folks?
0048
1 A. Yes. When I examined Ms. Ginn, I found that she
2 had been in a stable relationship, a marriage for
3 34 years. She was an avid reader. She was
4 functioning in her life. She was gainfully
5 employed in her own business. She had no legal
6 consequences that I was aware of at the time, and
7 that she had not used or abused other
8 medications, and so in my opinion -- and her
9 usage was stable. So in my opinion, looking at
10 those facts, she suffered no adverse consequences
11 or escalating use to this medication -- to this
12 as a medication.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. And that's the basis that I prescribed it or
15 recommended it.
16 Q. And all that -- excuse me. And all that was
17 based on her self report to you during your --
18 when you took her history and examined her?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. And you indicated that you did not prescribe or
21 designate or any kind of directory language a
22 specific amount for her to ingest --
23 A. No --
24 Q. -- in one way or another?
25 A. -- I did not give her any specifics.
0049
1 MR. JONES: I have no further
2 questions, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Redirect?
4 MR. HIATT: Thank you, Your Honor.
5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
6 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Doctor, when you examined
7 Ms. Ginn, did you order a blood test to determine
8 whether she was on any current medications?
9 A. Was that the -- is that -- I believe there was a
10 urine test for drugs of abuse.
11 Q. Is that -- could you take a look at that and then
12 tell me if you recognize that.
13 MR. JONES: Your Honor, I would object
14 to the relevance of this line of questioning.
15 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, this goes to
16 his examination and the concerns that Mr. Jones
17 was raising about whether the doctor was
18 concerned about her use of marijuana since age 13
19 and other things. This is part of his reasonable
20 medical protocol. He conducted a drug test to
21 determine that she was clear for every other
22 controlled substance and then only tested
23 positive for marijuana.
24 THE COURT: My notes reflect he's
25 already testified to that.
0050
1 MR. HIATT: I would just like to get
2 a --
3 THE COURT: I want to keep this hearing
4 as summary and as focussed as possible. I am
5 going, however, to admit the drug test result to
6 support the opinion he previously testified to on
7 direct examination.
8 MR. HIATT: Thank you, Your Honor. I
9 would be moving to admit defense Exhibit 12,
10 which is the drug test.
11 THE COURT: Admitted over the
12 prosecutor's objection.
13 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit No. 12
14 was admitted into evidence.)
15 MR. HIATT: Thank you, Your Honor. I
16 have no further questions.
17 THE COURT: Any further recross?
18 MR. JONES: No, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: I do have a question,
20 doctor.
21 EXAMINATION
22 Q. (By the Court) I am a bit confused. I have
23 heard you testify that she had long-term stable
24 use of marijuana over a long period of time in
25 which her life had also been stable. What
0051
1 evidence have you supplied to me of intractable
2 pain?
3 A. On my history she gave a history of pain and
4 spasms, and that had been going on for some time,
5 worse with activity. On examination -- her exam
6 was fairly clear, but she was under the influence
7 of the substance at that point. And while she
8 was quite clear and succinct and in a clear
9 mental frame of mind -- I felt that she was
10 functioning quite well -- and that the medication
11 must have been successfully treating her
12 condition.
13 THE COURT: I see. All right. That's
14 all the questions I have. Any follow-up
15 questions? First from defense counsel?
16 MR. HIATT: Just a real quick one.
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) I mean, your physical examination
19 of Ms. Ginn revealed the underlying condition
20 that was causing the pain and suffering or the
21 intractable pain?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And that condition concerned degenerative
24 narrowing of the spine and compression of disks
25 and things of that nature?
0052
1 MR. JONES: I would object to the
2 leading nature of the question.
3 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
4 Don't lead the witness.
5 MR. HIATT: I'm just trying to move
6 faster, Your Honor. I'm sorry.
7 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Did your examination reveal damage
8 to the spine?
9 A. That would have required an x-ray, and we did not
10 do an x-ray, as I recall.
11 Q. Okay. Did your examination reveal painful
12 conditions in Ms. --
13 A. Yes. It was my opinion that she had a
14 debilitating painful condition.
15 MR. HIATT: Thank you, Your Honor.
16 That's all.
17 THE COURT: Mr. Jones?
18 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
19 Q. (By Mr. Jones) Is there any reason to think that
20 other treatments would not have been successful?
21 You indicated that -- just to clarify, you said
22 that you thought the marijuana was treating it
23 successfully; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. At a time where she hadn't been authorized, as
0053
1 far as you were aware?
2 A. I wasn't aware that she was not authorized at
3 that time.
4 Q. Okay. But you didn't explore any other
5 alternatives with her, because you thought that
6 the marijuana was working; is that correct?
7 A. I had -- I had received information from her that
8 other things had been tried, medications,
9 physical therapy, I believe chiropractic, and
10 that none of those things had worked. And then
11 rather than submit to continuing other
12 medications with dealing with pain, since the
13 marijuana was effective, then I felt that was the
14 best treatment, especially since she was able to
15 maintain her functionality in life.
16 Q. She didn't provide you with any medical records
17 to that effect?
18 A. I did not see -- I did not see any medical
19 records.
20 Q. Thank you. But she did tell you that she'd been
21 smoking the marijuana since she was age 13?
22 MR. HIATT: Asked and answered,
23 Your Honor. Objection.
24 THE COURT: Sustained.
25 THE COURT: Any further questions?
0054
1 MR. HIATT: No.
2 THE COURT: You may step down, doctor.
3 Thank you for coming today. You are free to
4 leave.
5 THE WITNESS: All right. Thank you.
6 THE COURT: You are also subject to any
7 prior subpoena you have for testimony at the
8 trial before the jury. You are not released from
9 that.
10 THE WITNESS: All right.
11 THE COURT: And you need to sign in
12 with the clerk over here to get some information.
13 And Mr. Hiatt, you may call your next witness.
14 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, I am mindful of
15 Mr. Jones' desire. I haven't made up my mind
16 whether I wanted to put Ms. Ginn on now or
17 Mr. Martinez, but we need to get that evidence
18 looked at. We could do it right here, I think.
19 We could clean off the table.
20 MR. JONES: Why can't he do it on the
21 witness stand, Your Honor?
22 THE COURT: What is, again, the
23 information that Mr. Martinez is going to
24 address?
25 MR. HIATT: Mr. Martinez is critical to
0055
1 examining the 60-day supply issue, because
2 Mr. Martinez -- since he is an expert on
3 cultivating marijuana, he has the ability to look
4 at this marijuana and tell us the difference
5 between what may be weighed as nonusable garbage,
6 essentially that has to be thrown away, versus
7 what's usable medicine. That goes directly to
8 the heart of the 60-day supply argument.
9 They have weighed two pounds. We've never
10 seen it. We have never examined it. They say
11 there's two pounds of marijuana here. My expert
12 needs to look at that marijuana to determine is
13 it two pounds of usable medicine or is it, you
14 know, six ounces of usable medicine and a whole
15 bunch of shake. That's essentially what we -- we
16 need to view that evidence so that my expert can
17 express an opinion about it. If we want to take
18 it all apart and do it while he's sitting on the
19 stand and do it right there while I'm questioning
20 him, we can certainly do that, but it will be a
21 lot more time- consuming. I know this because
22 I've done it before with Mr. Martinez.
23 It will be a lot more time-consuming than
24 letting him look at this evidence very quickly
25 with the detective here and just taking a quick
0056
1 look at it and then testifying about it.
2 THE COURT: That's not the issue in
3 this case for purposes of this hearing. The
4 issue is whether he is qualified to give an
5 opinion, and after -- if he is qualified --
6 MR. HIATT: I can --
7 THE COURT: -- if he is qualified, then
8 we will be interested to know what his opinion
9 is. But that opinion can be given to the jury as
10 easily as it can be given here. He doesn't have
11 an opinion now because he has never seen this
12 material.
13 MR. HIATT: Right. And that's the
14 problem, Your Honor, is that I -- we had tried to
15 get the view of the evidence done before. I know
16 Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jones had unsuccessfully
17 tried on a couple of occasions to get it viewed
18 with Mr. Martinez, and then the last time with
19 the weather situation, they ran out of time to
20 get this viewing done.
21 I can put Mr. Martinez on, qualify him as
22 an expert, and then we could get him get off to
23 examine the material. But he can't tell me
24 anything about whether or not this is usable
25 medicine to be counted towards the 60-day supply
0057
1 until he actually sees it and is able to look at
2 it.
3 THE COURT: He can't know the 60-day
4 supply until he knows the dose. That's
5 axiomatic, it seems to me.
6 THE COURT: No. Mr. Martinez can't
7 give us the dose, Your Honor. Mr. Martinez can
8 only give us --
9 THE COURT: The amount of usable
10 marijuana that is there in his opinion.
11 MR. HIATT: Right. That's seized. And
12 he can't tell us what her dose should have been.
13 We have a little bit of evidence in the record
14 now. We are going to get Mr. Carter in later.
15 But we need him to just view, essentially, the
16 raw seized marijuana to give us an opinion on
17 what would be usable medicine when we get to the
18 stage of --
19 THE COURT: Mr. Jones, do you dispute
20 this witness's qualifications to render an
21 opinion on the amount of usable marijuana that
22 has been seized by police officers here?
23 MR. JONES: Well, Your Honor, I guess
24 my comments would be more basic than that. As I
25 peruse the statute, there is no such thing -- no
0058
1 such term defined as "usable marijuana."
2 It's "marijuana." That is what is in -- that is
3 what is in the statute. And this stuff has been
4 tested, and it's marijuana. Usable marijuana,
5 I'm not quite sure -- I guess I would dispute the
6 fact that he would have qualifications to come up
7 with that, since I don't know him. I'm not
8 familiar with him. But my objection is more --
9 and the basis of my motion is more basic than
10 that, and that is, however much -- how do we know
11 how much that is? I mean, it's not listed
12 anywhere.
13 He can -- he is proposing to come in and
14 look at this -- let's say it is ten ounces of
15 marijuana. He looks at it and says how much of
16 that ten ounces of marijuana could be used as
17 medicine right now. How is that relevant to the
18 issue before the court right now?
19 THE COURT: All right. You may call
20 your witness for the purposes of establishing his
21 qualifications to render an opinion. We are sure
22 not going to sit here in open court and have him
23 do the work that should have been done a long
24 time ago. And don't tell me about there were a
25 couple of days when he couldn't come down,
0059
1 because I'll accept that contention and recognize
2 that there's been weeks and weeks and weeks when
3 all of that could have been accomplished.
4 MR. HIATT: No argument, Your Honor,
5 and I'm not saying that. I am simply saying at
6 this particular point at this particular
7 evidentiary hearing I'm now stuck with this. And
8 if I establish his credentials on the stand, will
9 we then be able to view the marijuana and open
10 that up so we can establish his expert opinion?
11 Because otherwise I don't think there's a basis
12 for me to elicit other testimony from him. I can
13 qualify him as an expert --
14 THE COURT: I don't need other
15 testimony from him at this point. We need to
16 know the amount of marijuana, and that may be the
17 amount seized or the amount that is usable. That
18 goes to the weight of the evidence for the jury,
19 not the law. The law doesn't say anything about
20 amounts of marijuana. It says 60-day supplies,
21 and that is dependent upon the amount that the
22 person consumes per day, I guess.
23 MR. HIATT: No. I think that's true,
24 Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: You may call this witness
0060
1 to establish his credentials to give opinions.
2 After that, if he's going to be permitted to
3 testify, he may do the investigation necessary to
4 qualify him for testifying before the jury or to
5 prepare him for testimony before the jury.
6 Call your witness.
7 MR. HIATT: Okay. Thank you,
8 Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Come forward, sir. Stop
10 about there and raise your right hand, please.
11 Martin Martinez,
12 called as a witness, having been sworn,
13 was examined and testified as follows:
14 THE COURT: Welcome, and please be
15 seated here.
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION
17 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Mr. Martinez, could you please
18 state and spell your last name and give your
19 address -- professional address for the record.
20 A. Martin Martinez, M-A-R-T-I-N-E-Z.
21 2442 Northwest Market Street, No. 508, in
22 Seattle, Washington, 98107.
23 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, may I approach
24 to help out?
25 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
0061
1 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Mr. Martinez, what is your
2 occupation?
3 A. I am an injured person, so I am not full-time
4 employed. I have done management of residential
5 properties and remodeling, carpentry, and
6 electrical work, plumbing and an assortment of
7 construction skills. At the same time I am a --
8 I am the director of the Lifeline Foundation,
9 which is a nonprofit foundation assisting medical
10 marijuana patients with legal work and also
11 educating the public on the uses of marijuana as
12 medicine.
13 Q. Mr. Martinez, could you tell us a little bit
14 about how you came to have your knowledge and
15 your skill concerning marijuana as being medicine
16 and concerning marijuana cultivation.
17 A. In 1996 I was arrested in possession of 88 large
18 mature marijuana plants in the city of Seattle,
19 and I faced trial for medical necessity for
20 manufacturing marijuana, this State's second
21 medical necessity case.
22 Through that ordeal and the trial I
23 received some public notoriety, and my physician
24 subsequently filed an Initiative 682 which became
25 the Medical Use of Marijuana Act in this state.
0062
1 I helped in a small way to help design some of
2 the factors in that law. And I have -- since
3 then I was a member of the Oakland Cannabis
4 Buyers Club, and I was one of 30 plaintiffs who
5 brought the issue of medical marijuana to the US
6 Supreme Court.
7 At the same time I was working in Sonoma
8 County, California, with patients there, and we
9 had negotiations underway with Mike Mones
10 (phonetic) the then prosecuting attorney of
11 Sonoma in California where we have established
12 reasonable guidelines on the use and cultivation
13 of medical marijuana for medical use in that
14 state.
15 Q. Mr. Martinez, are you yourself a medical
16 marijuana patient?
17 A. Yes. I was in a very severe motorcycle crash
18 approximately 16 years ago, and I have been
19 recommended marijuana legally by physicians since
20 before it was allowed in the state.
21 Q. Pursuant to your status as a medical marijuana
22 patient, did you begin to develop expertise in
23 cultivating marijuana?
24 A. Well, I've read most of the major books on the
25 subject, and I had -- I spent considerable time
0063
1 with recognized experts in the field. I've
2 worked with, as I said -- the Oakland Cannabis
3 Buyers Club is one of the most well known
4 patients groups in the nation. I've also
5 published by "Quick Marijuana Archives," which is
6 an company owned by Ed Rosenthal, obviously, and
7 recognized as one of the world experts in the
8 cultivation of marijuana.
9 Q. Mr. Martinez, is this the book that you -- that
10 you published (indicating)?
11 A. Yes. It is "The New Prescription - Marijuana As
12 Medicine," which is a compendium, a light review
13 of medical marijuana research in existence up
14 until the year 2000.
15 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, I would like to
16 mark this book as an exhibit.
17 THE COURT: All right.
18 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Mr. Martinez, how long have you
19 personally cultivated marijuana for medical use?
20 A. Well, through -- I testified in my trial in 1996
21 that I had been using marijuana and medically
22 ever since my motorcycle crash and had cultivated
23 somewhat previous to my arrest, but since that
24 point I have cultivated marijuana with larger
25 groups of patients as well as with individual
0064
1 caregiver relationships with individual patients
2 in this state and California. And let's see.
3 You're asking me how long or --
4 Q. How long you have been personally cultivating
5 marijuana and --
6 A. Oh, since the '80s, I guess.
7 Q. Okay. And you have personally -- you've
8 personally grown marijuana, and you continue to
9 personally grow marijuana?
10 A. Yes, I do. I have testified in trial in 2001
11 that I had at that time grown in excess of
12 1,000 marijuana plants.
13 MR. HIATT: I believe, Your Honor, just
14 for clarification, Mr. Martinez was referring to
15 a Lewis County court case where he was accepted
16 as an expert witness by the Lewis County Superior
17 Court, or it may have been Grays Harbor County.
18 I'm sorry. I don't have that transcript with me
19 today. I apologize.
20 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Do you have any other -- have you
21 ever -- blah.
22 Have you done any reading or had any
23 specific training or attended any conferences on
24 medical marijuana or use of medical marijuana or
25 cultivation of marijuana?
0065
1 A. I have done extensive research. It's only a
2 small fraction presented in that book. I have
3 also attended medical marijuana conferences,
4 which are recognized by the
5 American Medical Association, in Portland, in
6 San Francisco, in Iowa, and here in Seattle.
7 MR. HIATT: All right. Thank you.
8 Mr. Martinez. Your Honor, I am offering
9 Mr. Martinez as an expert on the issue of
10 marijuana as a medicine and on the issue of
11 cultivation of marijuana. Objections?
12 THE COURT: I don't understand that
13 that's the gist of the opinion that he is going
14 to be asked to address, Mr. Hiatt. What I
15 understood is that he was going to take a look at
16 the quantity of marijuana that was seized and
17 render an opinion as to how much of that was
18 usable marijuana.
19 MR. HIATT: That is correct, Your Honor.
20 That's the question I'm getting ready to ask him.
21 The question I'm getting ready to ask him is, in
22 your expert opinion -- we need to break these
23 bags open, we needs to do all of that. The next
24 question I am going to ask him is, he's been
25 cultivating marijuana for all of this time, so is
0066
1 he aware of what parts of the plant can be used
2 as medicine and what parts of the plant are
3 completely useless as medicine.
4 THE COURT: That seems to me that that
5 would be important information as far as his
6 background to answer this ultimate question, so
7 you should proceed in that direction. I am not
8 going to declare he's an expert or not an expert
9 on these other subjects, because I don't
10 understand them to be the subject of any
11 questions necessarily concerning him.
12 MR. HIATT: Thank you, Your Honor.
13 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Mr. Martinez, tell us about
14 marijuana. Tell us about growing marijuana
15 plants. How do you -- how do you grow them? How
16 long does it take to grow them? What's the --
17 what are the types of yields that can be given
18 off of indoor plants?
19 What part of the plant is usable as
20 medicine? What part of the plant is thrown away?
21 Those are the kinds of questions that the court
22 is going to be interested in here today.
23 A. If I may add one more qualification. I also
24 failed to mention that I am also a co-author of
25 the scientific paper in draft process which is
0067
1 entitled "Medical Marijuana Dosing
2 Recommendations" by a team of medical and
3 researchers, and that is, I imagine, more to the
4 issue of my qualified testimony at this point.
5 On the use of marijuana as medicine
6 requires a cultivation which is an extended
7 process for successful medical quality cannabis.
8 The weed that can be grown wildly with very
9 little care is not usable medicine. To create
10 rich -- cannabinoid-rich marijuana requires a bit
11 of care and a bit of attention and several
12 months.
13 It's very frequent that from one --
14 from -- for one thing that we must only use the
15 female plants. And so when you start with seeds,
16 very often you have a percentage of -- about
17 50 percent male plants which you must grow for
18 many weeks or even months to determine their sex,
19 and then they are thrown away. So, there is a
20 selection process of narrowing the numbers
21 significantly right from the start.
22 It takes a minimum of three months, I
23 would say, four months, even, from the start of
24 the seed to the fully mature plant and requires a
25 significant amount of light and rich medium. And
0068
1 when you're finished, the product -- I believe
2 the state laws in this regard are clear that
3 these stems, the stalks and the plant are not
4 legal as they contain almost no cannabinoids,
5 THC, and the other active ingredients in
6 marijuana. And there is also a great deal of
7 leaf -- large leaves required to build the body
8 of the plant. However, the real fruit of the
9 production is the flowers or the buds, and they
10 contain the largest concentrations of the
11 cannabinoid compounds used for medical treatment.
12 Q. So, would it be possible for you -- if you were
13 to examine marijuana that had been seized, is it
14 possible for you to look at this marijuana and
15 render an opinion -- an expert opinion as to what
16 part of this marijuana would be usable medicine
17 and what part would be detritus that needs to be
18 thrown away?
19 A. Well, sure. I could differentiate it. I don't
20 have any means of calculating the amounts, but --
21 Q. Well, you could differentiate it, and then you
22 could offer an opinion if you had a scale,
23 perhaps, and you could offer an opinion that this
24 is the usable medicine, this is the nonusable
25 medicine?
0069
1 A. Correct.
2 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, I would ask
3 that I be allowed to present Mr. Martinez with
4 the physical evidence and let him take a look at
5 it.
6 THE COURT: For what purpose?
7 MR. HIATT: To determine what amount --
8 if the State's contention is that the 60-day
9 supply amount that we are going to go from -- if
10 we are going to -- if it's an issue that we may
11 or may not be over the 60-day supply or under the
12 60-day supply, we need to determine what would be
13 usable as medicine, what would count towards that
14 supply. That's my argument. That's the proffer
15 I want to make to you is that Mr. Martinez's
16 testimony is now that only part of the plant is
17 usable as medicine. His testimony is that the
18 leaf, the stems, the large leaves, all of that
19 does not contain cannabinoid compounds, is
20 useless as medicine, has to be thrown away. To
21 the extent that that's been weighed and is being
22 presented as part of the 60-day supply, that's
23 not right. Because, you know, if he brought in a
24 whole bunch of big stalks of marijuana and
25 weighed them, they could weigh a lot, and they
0070
1 might not have any usable medicine on them at
2 all.
3 THE COURT: I clearly understand that,
4 counsel, and as I indicated when we began
5 Mr. Martinez's testimony today, what I was
6 interested in was whether he was qualified to
7 render such an opinion. And if you are done
8 establishing his qualifications, then it is time
9 for cross-examination.
10 What we are not going to do is wait here
11 while he does the lab work that's necessary to
12 render a meaningful opinion for the jury. When
13 that will be done, if at all, remains to be seen.
14 "When" is fixing a schedule. "If at all" is
15 dependent on whether the case goes forward with
16 this defense.
17 MR. HIATT: I submit to Your Honor,
18 just for your own -- I understand we don't want
19 to sit here. I understand that. And I am not --
20 I am trying to find a way around that and get
21 this evidence proffered on the record that only
22 "X" amount of usable medicine is really here.
23 I would think that Your Honor would be --
24 I mean, I know Your Honor can differentiate, but
25 I believe that Mr. Martinez, at this point, is
0071
1 qualified as an expert to make that opinion, and
2 I would ask that we be given a chance to examine
3 the evidence at some point.
4 THE COURT: You will be given a chance
5 to examine the evidence at some point if he is
6 qualified as an expert that is going to be
7 permitted to testify.
8 MR. HIATT: Right.
9 THE COURT: But I'm not going to decide
10 that now. I consider this all reasonably
11 extraneous to the issue of what we are here to
12 decide, and that is whether there is evidence
13 that a jury could use to find that the elements
14 of the defense have been established. And the
15 amount of marijuana is something that for the
16 most part will go to the weight of the evidence
17 and be determined by the jury.
18 MR. HIATT: I understand Your Honor's
19 point.
20 THE COURT: All right.
21 MR. HIATT: I got it now.
22 THE COURT: Then sit down, unless you
23 have more questions to ask concerning his
24 qualifications.
25 MR. HIATT: Yes. I have more questions
0072
1 to ask Mr. Martinez concerning his
2 qualifications.
3 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Mr. Martinez, in your capacity as
4 director of Lifeline, are you aware of other
5 medical marijuana patients' usage of marijuana?
6 A. I am in personal contact with hundreds of medical
7 marijuana patients in the Seattle area.
8 Q. Could you -- I'm sorry. I didn't quite catch
9 that.
10 A. I said I am in personal contact with hundreds of
11 medical marijuana patients in the Seattle area,
12 and we have a share of information on these
13 topics.
14 Q. So, you have a data base or shared information as
15 to what would be an average use of medical
16 marijuana patients that you're familiar with?
17 A. Yes. I'm collecting this information as a part
18 of the scientific research I mentioned earlier,
19 as well as for admission to the city of Seattle
20 Medical Marijuana Working Group, which has been
21 put together by the Seattle City Council and the
22 Seattle City Attorney's office.
23 Q. Okay. Pursuant to your --
24 THE COURT: Did I understand you to say
25 that you are a member of that working group?
0073
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I am.
2 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
3 MR. HIATT: He is, Your Honor. He's
4 the expert on that work group.
5 Well, Mr. Jones apparently finds that
6 interesting. He can call the Seattle City
7 Attorney, Tom Carr, and --
8 THE COURT: I don't think that he was
9 laughing at the qualifications so much as he was
10 laughing, perhaps, at the way it was presented to
11 me through your testimony rather than the
12 witness's.
13 MR. HIATT: Either way, Your Honor.
14 Again, I am trying to go as fast as I can here
15 now --
16 THE COURT: Right.
17 MR. HIATT: -- and I'm mindful of the
18 court and time ticking.
19 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Mr. Martinez, so your -- pursuant
20 to your examination of this data base, do you
21 have opinions as to average or usual amounts of
22 marijuana used by medical marijuana patients in
23 your experience?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Okay. And could you give us some idea of what
0074
1 those amounts might be?
2 A. The typical range of the medical marijuana
3 patient with good quality medicine is typically
4 10 to 20 grams per week, though it may
5 approximate drastically in either direction.
6 THE COURT: I didn't hear after the
7 last 10 to 20.
8 A. It may be higher or lower by a great amount
9 depending on individual needs.
10 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) We're talking about how the amount
11 may vary widely now. What are some of the
12 factors that you're aware of or that your
13 research has led you to look at? What are some
14 of the factors that determine how much marijuana
15 is used? What are some of the things that go
16 into that?
17 A. Well, the type of disease in question, the length
18 of the illnesses, duration for the individual,
19 the length of time of using cannabis as a
20 medicine, and of course the quality of the
21 medicine itself.
22 Q. Okay. Are there differences in patient use that
23 can be tied to how patients use marijuana?
24 A. Well, administration is very critical. There are
25 a wide variety of methods of ingestion, yes. It
0075
1 can vary drastically, depending on that variable.
2 Q. For example, if someone was baking with marijuana
3 or was eating marijuana, would their use or their
4 amounts tend to be typically higher than somebody
5 that might be smoking?
6 A. Extracting the cannabinoid materials from the
7 plant can be accomplished with butter and used as
8 a cooking material. In that case, more of the
9 plant may be usable, but the required volume is
10 drastically higher than if the patient were only
11 to be using the flowers, say smoking.
12 Q. So, that's a factor that could influence a
13 determination -- a jury determination of what a
14 60-day supply would be --
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. -- for any given patient.
17 A. Absolutely.
18 Q. So, would a 60-day supply -- could a 60-day
19 supply be very different for two patients with
20 even the same condition based on different
21 administration?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Are there any other variables that you are
24 aware of, in terms of -- in terms of use that
25 would -- you know, and anything else that would
0076
1 factor into how much marijuana is needed by a
2 given patient?
3 A. Well, marijuana is generally recommended on an
4 as-needed basis, and individuals have drastically
5 particular biochemistries, which is another
6 variable, and the bioavailability of cannabinoids
7 requires an alteration of any individual's use,
8 depending upon what may be needed based on the
9 illness and based on numerous factors of their
10 own personal biochemistry.
11 Q. In your own personal experience, do you -- do
12 you -- what kind -- what rate of marijuana or
13 what kind of marijuana consumption do you
14 personally have?
15 MR. JONES: Your Honor, I would object
16 to the relevance of that question.
17 THE COURT: How is it relevant?
18 MR. HIATT: It goes to the basis for
19 his knowledge, training, skill and experience,
20 Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
22 A. At this time I'm using approximately five grams
23 per day.
24 MR. HIATT: Thank you.
25 THE COURT: I'm sorry. What?
0077
1 THE WITNESS: Approximately five grams
2 per day on a regular basis.
3 THE COURT: All right.
4 MR. HIATT: Okay.
5 A. And excuse my voice. I suffered from new damage
6 subsequent to the motorcycle crash.
7 THE COURT: I suspected that was the
8 case.
9 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, I am going to
10 yield to Your Honor for any further questions. I
11 have no further questions.
12 THE COURT: Cross-examination? No.
13 You have no cross-examination?
14 MR. JONES: I have no
15 cross-examination.
16 THE COURT: All right.
17 MR. JONES: I'm trying to figure out
18 the relevance of the testimony in regard to the
19 motion that's before the court.
20 EXAMINATION
21 Q. (By the Court) Mr. Martinez, are you aware of
22 any biomechanical or chemical test that is
23 determined by any health care provider that is
24 relevant to determine the particular dosage that
25 is appropriate for any particular person?
0078
1 A. I believe that those studies are underway. There
2 are estimates, or there are guidelines, or there
3 are quantities in use in studies which are not
4 replicating actual medical use. They are
5 research studies. As far as mechanical
6 capabilities of studying the percentage of THC in
7 the product, that requires elaborate scientific
8 analysis.
9 Q. And to your knowledge have any of those tests
10 been conducted, or have any standards or
11 protocols been developed that results in a
12 recommended dosage for a particular person?
13 A. As a matter of medical regulation, I believe not.
14 As a matter of practical experience, there are
15 studies which have a standard established. There
16 are also distribution programs such as the US
17 government's Compassionate Use Program which have
18 created a standard of care by practice in the
19 last, approximately, three decades.
20 Q. Does that standard include a recommended dosage?
21 A. The Compassionate Use investigational new drug
22 program does deliver 300 .9 gram marijuana
23 cigarettes to its patients every month. That is
24 approximately nine grams per day, which is higher
25 than my own usage, which is explained by the fact
0079
1 that chemical assay has determined that this
2 medicine grown by the US government is inferior
3 to the material that is typically used by medical
4 marijuana patients in the west coast today.
5 THE COURT: All right. That's all the
6 questions I have. Do you have any follow-up
7 questions to the subjects that I introduced?
8 MR. HIATT: No, I don't.
9 THE COURT: Mr. Jones?
10 MR. JONES: Nothing, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: You may step down, sir.
12 Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 THE COURT: Gentlemen, we have come to
15 the time where we need to take a recess,
16 regardless of other time constraints, and so we
17 will take our regular recess. This will be an
18 opportunity, I suspect, for this witness to at
19 least begin his examination of the medical
20 marijuana. By indicating that, I am telegraphing
21 my decision that at least as to this aspect of
22 the case I am satisfied that this witness has
23 established credentials sufficient to permit him
24 to testify concerning his experience regarding
25 the range of ingestion necessary to obtain relief
0080
1 under the medical marijuana law and his ability
2 to, at least in some circumstances, assess the
3 amount of usable medical-grade marijuana in a
4 particular sample.
5 So I'll permit him to look at that sample
6 at this time.
7 MR. HIATT: Thank you, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: We'll stand in recess for
9 15 minutes.
10 MR. HIATT: Thank you, Your Honor.
11 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
12 THE COURT: Please be seated. Call
13 your next witness.
14 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, I think the
15 next witness that we wanted to call was
16 Dr. Carter, and we're going to try to get him
17 here by phone.
18 THE COURT: Have you made arrangements
19 to do that?
20 MR. HIATT: I have, and I need the
21 number for him to call in, and then I think we
22 are set. I'm not a big high tech guy, so I
23 can't --
24 THE COURT: Have you even talked
25 about -- to the clerk about setting this up?
0081
1 MR. HIATT: We were doing the evidence
2 and talking about this.
3 THE COURT: Do you have any witnesses
4 other than this person?
5 MR. HIATT: Your Honor, originally I
6 had contemplated calling the defendant, but I
7 don't think I'm going to. I think I'm going to
8 just call Dr. Carter, and that's going to be the
9 last witness, because I think everything's in
10 now.
11 THE COURT: All right. Well, at this
12 point, now, we are going to be waiting for the
13 witness to call back in? We will stand in recess
14 until that's been accomplished
15 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
16 THE COURT: Please be seated, ladies
17 and gentlemen.
18 MR. HIATT: Dr. Carter?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 MR. HIATT: Can you hear me?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
22 THE COURT: Mr. Hiatt, you've called
23 Dr. Carter as your next witness and propose to
24 have him testify by telephone; is that correct?
25 MR. HIATT: I do, Your Honor.
0082
1 THE COURT: Dr. Carter, are you
2 standing, and if you are, would you please raise
3 your right hand. I need to put you under oath
4 before you answer these questions.
5 Gregory T. Carter,
6 called as a witness, having been sworn, was
7 examined and testified via telephone as follows:
8 THE COURT: Welcome, and now Mr. Hiatt
9 will conduct a direct examination of you.
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION
11 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Dr. Carter, would you state and
12 spell your name and give your address for the
13 record.
14 A. Gregory T. Carter, C-a-r-t-e-r, 1809 Cooks Hill
15 Road, Centralia, Washington.
16 Q. Doctor, what's -- how are you presently employed?
17 A. I work for the Providence Health Care System as
18 their Regional Medical Director of Rehabilitation
19 Services in southwest Washington, and I'm also an
20 associate professor at the University of
21 Washington.
22 Q. Are you licensed to practice in Washington under
23 RCW 18.71, et seq?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us a little bit about
0083
1 your education and your training and your areas
2 of expertise for the record.
3 A. Yes. I have a bachelor's degree in Physiology, a
4 medical degree, a master's degree in Physiology
5 and in Neuromuscular Disease.
6 Q. Are you board certified in any areas?
7 A. Yes. I'm board certified in Physical
8 Rehabilitation and Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
9 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about the -- or tell
10 us, if you are, are you currently working on
11 investigating marijuana as medicine?
12 A. Yes. I'm actively involved in research in that
13 area.
14 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about the research
15 that you are currently engaged in on medical
16 marijuana?
17 A. Yes. We have several projects in progress. We
18 have a few projects looking at a synthetic
19 cannabinoid, which is the active ingredient in
20 marijuana, in a mouse model of Lou Gehrig's
21 disease, otherwise known as amyotrophic lateral
22 sclerosis. We just published a clinical paper on
23 the medicinal use of medical marijuana to treat
24 the symptoms of Lou Gehrig's disease, and that
25 will be published shortly.
0084
1 We have also completed a couple of other
2 papers on the use of marijuana to treat pain
3 associated with painful neuropathy.
4 Q. Okay. Could you tell us what some of the
5 findings are or explain some of the science
6 around medical marijuana? How does it work, what
7 cannabinoid compounds are you investigating, and
8 how does an average patient, in your experience
9 or in your studies, use medical marijuana?
10 MR. JONES: Your Honor, I would object
11 to the relevance of the question.
12 THE COURT: How is this relevant,
13 Mr. Hiatt?
14 MR. HIATT: I think it goes towards his
15 qualifications as an expert and the
16 investigations he's doing right now with patients
17 that are ongoing, and I think that it also goes
18 to his qualification to express an opinion on
19 common level dosing amounts. To me it's
20 foundational, just like it was with Mr. Martinez.
21 THE COURT: Well, except you've asked
22 him for findings, his findings.
23 MR. HIATT: I've asked him what his
24 research is entailing and what he can tell us
25 about his research into cannabinoid compounds.
0085
1 THE COURT: Did you hear all of that,
2 Dr. Carter?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: All right. The objection
5 is overruled. You may answer the question as
6 explained by Mr. Hiatt in his explanation here,
7 and that is to explain what your research entails
8 and how it involves cannabinoid compounds.
9 A. Well, we have several areas that we're currently
10 investigating. One of them is with a synthetic
11 cannabinoid made by a British pharmaceutical
12 company. Actually, I'm not allowed to say too
13 much about that because I signed an agreement
14 with the company. But that is a synthetic form
15 of cannabinoids that they are currently
16 investigating for uses as an analgesic and to
17 treat muscle spasm.
18 We have looked at the use of natural
19 marijuana to treat spasticity and pain in
20 Lou Gehrig's disease, and in those users there
21 was statistically improvement in pain and muscle
22 spasm.
23 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) Doctor, have you recommended
24 marijuana -- medical marijuana for use by
25 patients?
0086
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. Okay. Do you know how many patients you've
3 recommended medical marijuana for?
4 A. I would estimate about 40.
5 Q. Okay. Do you have an idea, or have you been able
6 to form an opinion as to common dosing amounts or
7 usual dosing amounts as they would relate to
8 various disorders?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Could you explain a little bit about that.
11 A. Yes. Well, the question is somewhat complicated.
12 It -- the natural marijuana plant can have
13 anywhere from 3 to 15 percent of cannabinoid by
14 weight, and the cannabinoids -- there's about
15 60 different cannabinoids, and they each have
16 distinct pharmacological properties. So, it gets
17 fairly complicated, depending on the quality of
18 the plant material used.
19 We actually have some survey data that
20 would say that typical usage is between 10 to
21 30 grams a week, and that's what's reported by
22 medicinal users. Now, when you look at an amount
23 like that, you have to -- you want to be specific
24 about the actual dose. You have to say what is
25 the THC or cannabinoid content of that plant
0087
1 material.
2 The other factors involved are how it's
3 used, because the absorption rate is different
4 whether it's smoked or inhaled by a vaporizer or
5 if it is eaten or ingested with the food.
6 Q. Okay. So, there is not a -- at the current time
7 a standard dosing model that you are aware of for
8 medical marijuana patients.
9 A. There is not. I think you are aware that we are
10 working on a paper to put together a model for
11 that, though, because that's distinctly lacking
12 in the medical literature right now.
13 Q. Right. And your research with your patients and
14 with others is what's leading you to look -- is
15 that what led you to the usage figure of a 10 to
16 30 grams a week?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And can you explain a little bit of the -- I
19 understand there are all these different
20 compounds, and it's difficult based on absorption
21 rate, but what other factors make medical
22 marijuana difficult to -- I want to say
23 prescribe, or difficult to authorize with any
24 accuracy? Is it basically the -- what you have
25 already stated, the absorption rates and the
0088
1 types of illness, or are there other things that
2 may be a factor in there, too?
3 A. Well, there are a number of factors, yes. An
4 experienced user or a chronic marijuana user
5 actually metabolizes the cannabinoids more
6 efficiently. So, someone who is a long-time
7 user, they have developed a tolerance. So
8 actually, people who are long-time users can use
9 very large amounts of cannabinoids. And that's
10 not solely just cannabinoids. A lot of medicines
11 are like that, where people will develop what
12 they call tolerance.
13 So, if someone's a long-time user, they
14 can use very high amounts or require high amounts
15 to get the same effect as someone who is a novel
16 user. The novel user may get a strong effect in
17 just a small amount.
18 Again, the quality or the content of the
19 THC in the plant material. There's tremendous
20 variability. Some people grow it themselves or
21 they get it in a co-op or whatever. There's very
22 differing amounts, and it makes it very difficult
23 to get a specific recommendation.
24 And then if it's orally ingested or eaten,
25 it's actually metabolized differently by the body
0089
1 than if it is smoked. When the substance is
2 combusted, it actually -- I don't want to get too
3 technical here, but it hydrolysates, meaning it
4 puts on a OH group to the molecule. It changes
5 slightly chemically. And then you have a lot of
6 blood supply going through your lungs, so it is
7 absorbed a lot faster than if it is going through
8 your gut.
9 So it is fairly complicated, and I don't
10 want to try to confuse people here, but it is
11 difficult to distill it down into a simple
12 statement.
13 Q. Thank you, doctor.
14 Are there concerns with prescribing
15 medical marijuana -- I mean, are there concerns
16 like there are with other medications? Are there
17 particular concerns or lethality or anything like
18 that?
19 A. Well, I can say this without hesitation, and I
20 will say this on the record, that cannabinoids as
21 a substance are remarkably safe. There is no
22 known LD 50 or lethal dose 50. There's never
23 been a reported death associated with over
24 ingestion of cannabis, which is remarkable,
25 actually, considering the medications that most
0090
1 physicians prescribe.
2 Certainly compared to opioid narcotics,
3 there's no comparison as far as safety. The main
4 reason for that is there are no brain stem
5 receptors for cannabinoids, unlike the opioids,
6 which are brain stem -- it can suppress your
7 breathing, because they combine the receptors in
8 your brain stem.
9 Q. I understand. So in your opinion there are
10 situations where cannabinoid therapy would
11 definitely provide a safer therapy than, say,
12 opiate therapy?
13 A. In my opinion -- again I'll go on the record
14 saying this -- the family of cannabinoids are
15 hugely safer than the family of opioids, as far
16 as medications go. There's no comparison.
17 Q. So, if a doctor and a patient feel that marijuana
18 can be the best medicine for them, you would
19 typically recommend that. Do you have any
20 recommendations, or do you give any
21 recommendations to your patients on dose levels
22 or titration of dosage or anything like that?
23 A. Well, if I understand the law correctly, I really
24 cannot talk about specific amounts. I can make a
25 recommendation. I tell people to titrate the
0091
1 medication to the desired effect. I talk about
2 the side effects, because there are side effects,
3 and then I talk about what the desired effect is
4 in the context of what their medical problems
5 are.
6 Q. Okay. So, you don't have -- you don't actually
7 give an amount to your patients to use.
8 A. No. I don't -- I don't believe I can legally do
9 that. And correct me if I'm wrong.
10 Q. No. That's -- that's fine.
11 Do you have -- do you -- do you -- have
12 you formed -- because you've had so many
13 patients, do patients tell you sometimes what
14 they are using? You are gathering that type of
15 data that they -- do they give that information
16 to you?
17 A. Yes, they do.
18 Q. Okay. And that's what you are basing the 10 to
19 30 grams a week, in terms of normal usage on?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And 10 to 30 grams a week. What kind of
22 variation could there be, doctor? I mean, could
23 somebody be 50 percent over that or 50 percent
24 below it or 100 percent over it or 100 percent
25 below it? Because the lethality is low, is there
0092
1 a much wider range of dosage there?
2 A. Yes. And again, taking into account factors such
3 as tolerance, so chronic users will have a much
4 higher tolerance and an ability to tolerate much
5 higher doses. And when we talk about grams, we
6 are talking about raw plant material, again. It
7 would depend on the quality of the plant material
8 and the THC content by weight in that given
9 amount of plant material.
10 Q. Okay. Doctor, you are familiar with raw
11 marijuana itself?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What part of the marijuana plant contains the
14 usable medicine?
15 A. Well, truth be known, all parts do, but the
16 highest concentration of cannabinoids are in the
17 flowers.
18 Q. Okay. Is there really a usable amount for -- is
19 there a medically significant usable amount in,
20 say, the stems or leaf material?
21 A. Well, I have had people tell me they will make a
22 tea out of the stems and leaves, but certainly
23 there's probably 10 to 15 times more cannabinoids
24 in the flowers than there are in -- as opposed to
25 the stems and leaves.
0093
1 Q. So, the actual medicinal compounds occur in the
2 flowers, and the -- the --
3 MR. JONES: Objection to the
4 characterization of the question, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Overruled.
6 Q. (By Mr. Hiatt) And the stems and the other
7 material may contain usable medicine, but not in
8 amounts that make it practical for use. Is that,
9 in essence, what you're saying?
10 A. That's correct. Yeah.
11 MR. HIATT: Thank you very much,
12 Dr. Carter. I'm going to turn you over to
13 Judge McPhee here and potentially Mr. Jones, the
14 prosecutor.
15 THE COURT: Thank you.
16 Cross-examination, Mr. Jones?
17 MR. JONES: No questions, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: No questions?
19 MR. JONES: No questions.
20 THE COURT: Dr. Carter, I do have a
21 couple of questions for you.
22 EXAMINATION
23 Q. (By the Court) By implication it seems to me
24 your testimony suggests that the process of
25 inhaling marijuana is more -- "efficient" I guess
0094
1 is an appropriate word, than ingesting it; is
2 that correct?
3 A. That's correct. Yes, sir.
4 Q. By an order of magnitude, or do you have any
5 estimate regarding that?
6 A. Well, Your Honor, let me explain a little better.
7 The onset of action is much faster with smoking,
8 primarily because there's so much blood supply in
9 the lung. The cannabinoids actually change
10 structure chemically a little bit through the
11 process of combustion, which enhances their
12 strength, I guess, and I think you can just
13 deliver a larger dose much faster.
14 If it's eaten it has to be taken in
15 through the gut, broken down, digested, and then
16 absorbed into the blood stream, and then you
17 actually have what they call a first pass
18 metabolism, meaning when it goes to the liver and
19 it sort of gets deactivated a little bit.
20 So in the process of eating it, the onset
21 of action is slowed down to maybe about two
22 hours. The effect lasts a little longer if you
23 eat it, but it's not quite as powerful.
24 Q. From your experience in dealing with medical
25 marijuana patients, what percentage of patients
0095
1 inhale as opposed to ingest?
2 A. The vast majority inhale.
3 Q. Is there any factor that, in a sense,
4 disqualifies a person from inhaling and requires
5 ingestion?
6 A. Yes. Actually, some of my ALS patients don't
7 have enough lung power to inhale. And frankly,
8 as a physician, I don't advise people to smoke.
9 There are devices which you can purchase which
10 vaporize the cannabinoids, sort of like the
11 process for aroma therapy which occurs at about
12 200 degrees Fahrenheit, so you don't actually
13 have to smoke it. That is currently being
14 investigated by a physician named Don Abrams down
15 in San Francisco. I think it's a much healthier
16 option. I don't think smoking anything is
17 necessarily healthful for the lungs.
18 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
19 That's all the questions I have.
20 Mr. Hiatt, do you have any follow-up
21 questions?
22 MR. HIATT: No, I don't, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Mr. Jones?
24 MR. JONES: No. Thank you, Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: All right. That will
0096
1 conclude your testimony in this hearing today,
2 doctor. Thank you very much.
3 THE WITNESS: Most welcome.
4 THE COURT: Good-bye.
5 THE WITNESS: Bye-bye.
6 THE COURT: Mr. Hiatt, do you have any
7 further evidence to offer to the court?
8 MR. HIATT: No. I don't believe I do,
9 Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Jones?
11 MR. JONES: No. I have no evidence to
12 offer.
13 THE COURT: All right. This is a
14 motion brought by the prosecutor. It addresses a
15 matter in which the defendant had the burden of
16 proof, so I required that the defendant come
17 forward with that evidence and present it first,
18 but the burden of persuasion or the motion
19 remains with the prosecutor.
20 So, Mr. Jones, I will hear your argument
21 regarding the suppression of this defense by
22 reason of the failure to establish evidence
23 sufficient to support the elements of the
24 defense.
25 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honor. Thank
0097
1 you.
2 You've heard a great deal of testimony
3 today, and that testimony basically puts no
4 limitation on the amount of marijuana that a
5 person would be able to have or would be able to
6 utilize on a daily, weekly, monthly, or 60-day
7 basis. You heard testimony that said that it can
8 vary widely from -- and there is no limitation on
9 that variance. That it varies widely based on
10 how it's ingested, that it varies widely based on
11 what part of the plant is used. It varies widely
12 based upon the strength of the marijuana plant.
13 In other words, there are no limitations.
14 I don't believe that that is a reading of
15 the limitation contained in the law that this
16 court ought to adopt.
17 I believe that the statute is very
18 specific in terms of the 60-day limitation. I
19 believe that the State v. Shepherd case is very
20 straightforward in requiring the 60-day limit and
21 that that be set forth so that it can be utilized
22 or reviewed or examined by both law enforcement
23 officials that are charged with enforcing the law
24 and courts in subsequent court hearings such as
25 this.
0098
1 In addition, I believe that the aspect of
2 the -- there's two separate aspects of the law
3 that the defendant is relying upon. And although
4 the State's argument in regard to the 60-day
5 limitation and that none was set forth for either
6 one is applicable -- I mean, is applicable to
7 both the caregiver, in terms of the person who
8 was -- the defendant was giving care, and
9 herself, there is no 60-day limitation -- 60-day
10 supply, I mean, set forth or way to find out what
11 that is for either of these two.
12 Also, in regard to the caregiver aspect,
13 the defendant does not qualify as the primary
14 caregiver which would allow her to possess and
15 deliver controlled substances, marijuana, for
16 another person, and that is because all she
17 was -- her sole -- it's uncontested that her sole
18 duty in regard to being the primary caregiver is
19 to possess the -- or to manufacture and deliver
20 the marijuana.
21 There is no showing that she is
22 responsible for the housing, health, or care of
23 the patient. She is not. And in addition, I
24 would -- I'll also point out the authorization --
25 the medical authorization for the person for whom
0099
1 she indicates she was giving care, that that is
2 an authorization that provides on its face that
3 it is only good for six months, and then it
4 expires "from the date," and there is no date
5 inserted. So, there is no way for this court to
6 ascertain whether that was valid or whether it
7 was not valid, because the date is not inserted
8 in there. We don't have the person here to so
9 testify.
10 So for all of those reasons I would ask
11 you to preclude the defense from being able to
12 put on the medical marijuana defense.
13 THE COURT: Mr. Jones, I did not hear
14 you address the issue of whether the defendant
15 herself had established that she qualifies as a
16 qualifying patient under the law. Did I miss
17 that argument, or did you abandon that?
18 MR. JONES: No, Your Honor. That's --
19 that's correct. The law -- you heard that --
20 first of all, you can look at the exhibit that
21 was brought into evidence, and you can see that
22 the sole rationale, according to the doctor --
23 where is that? Can I have that?
24 THE CLERK: Which exhibit?
25 MR. JONES: The doctor's letter, right
0100
1 there, is for chronic back pain.
2 "Ms. Ginn has a medical condition, chronic
3 back pain, which warrants medical use of
4 marijuana. She's been using marijuana and it has
5 provided her with relief."
6 There is some information -- and some of
7 this would go to the weight, I think, that the
8 information that she provided to the doctor or
9 the doctor said that she provided to him was
10 different than she provided to the police, so I
11 won't go into that. But the -- in order to get
12 this intractable pain, there has to be -- the
13 doctor has to find that standard medical
14 treatments or medications would not cover that,
15 would not address that pain. And there's been no
16 such showing. So, I would ask the court also to
17 deny the motion for that reason.
18 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
19 Before I hear from Mr. Hiatt, sir, are you here
20 for ex parte?
21 MR. JONES: He's waiting for me,
22 Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Oh, all right.
24 Mr. Hiatt?
25 MR. HIATT: Thank you, Your Honor. I
0101
1 think, basically -- I just wanted to review real
2 quickly.
3 I think that Dr. Walck's testimony
4 establishes that Ms. Ginn is a qualifying
5 patient, that she has a qualifying condition, and
6 that he signed the authorization. We know now
7 that he authorized her medical use, and we know
8 that it is not a fake. And I believe that now
9 establishes her paperwork here under the statute.
10 I don't believe that it is appropriate,
11 and I don't believe that the voters of the State
12 of Washington meant for Mr. Jones or myself or
13 Your Honor or even the jury to second-guess a
14 doctor's opinion. Dr. Walck gave you his opinion
15 that this was appropriate medically for Ms. Ginn.
16 He based that on an examination of her. He based
17 it on a physical examination of her and a
18 detailed taking of history, and he decided in his
19 medical judgment, in consultation with his
20 patient, that that was appropriate.
21 He determined there was a qualifying
22 condition, and he has so testified. And he has
23 determined -- and he's testified that he
24 recommended the medical marijuana. So, I believe
25 that covers that part of the qualifying
0102
1 documentation part of the statute.
2 In terms of --
3 THE COURT: Why don't you roll right
4 into the qualifying documentation concerning
5 Mr. Otterson.
6 MR. HIATT: The caregiver
7 documentation -- well, there are two separate
8 arguments in this case, Your Honor, and this is
9 how I see them as relating. The reason, in my
10 mind, that Mr. Otterson's use or his purported
11 use may be important is as it goes to a 60-day
12 supply. One of the reasons that I chose not to
13 put Ms. Ginn on the stand and have her introduce
14 Mr. Otterson's designation of her as primary
15 caregiver is that after viewing the marijuana
16 evidence in question, it may be -- there may be
17 an expert opinion available at trial that this
18 would not constitute a 60-day supply for even
19 Ms. Ginn. So, there's that issue out there, as
20 well. But this may simply not even be a 60-day
21 supply that would be sufficient to serve her own
22 needs, let alone the caregiver.
23 At trial I would expect Ms. Ginn to take
24 the stand and to authenticate that document, and
25 we would still be making that caregiver argument.
0103
1 I believe the only thing that's required to
2 designate someone as a caregiver is a designation
3 saying this person is my caregiver. I am
4 choosing this person as my caregiver. I want
5 this person, you know, to take care of me
6 vis a vis the medical marijuana.
7 I don't think that the caregiver has to be
8 a family member or has to be a social worker or
9 something like that. I don't believe that's
10 true. It can be somebody that just takes on the
11 responsibility for the health or the care in this
12 medical marijuana area of that person. And I
13 believe that's a fair reading of that.
14 I don't think that the caregiver issue is
15 hugely important in this case if the 60-day
16 supply issue shakes out as I believe it would
17
