2 ACQUITTED IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE

County Jury Supports Growing Of Pot For SF Buyers Club; Second Defeat
For Prosecutors

A Sonoma County jury on Wednesday acquitted two men of all charges in a
medical marijuana trial, the second time this year that county
prosecutors have lost a high-profile pot case.

After a seven-week trial, the jury took less than five hours to
determine that Kenneth E. Hayes and Michael S. Foley were not drug
dealers but were legitimately providing marijuana to a San Francisco
buyers club.

As the verdict was announced, they wiped away tears and hugged their
attorneys.

"It's been a long fight, a long battle, almost two years old," Hayes
said outside the courtroom. "Hopefully this will have a long-lasting
effect, from Oregon to Mexico, from the Pacific Ocean all the way to
Nevada. The bottom line is patients should have access to their
medicine."

Hayes, 33, and his former roommate, Foley, 35, were charged with
marijuana cultivation, possessing concentrated cannabis and possession
for sale after sheriff's deputies seized more than 15 pounds of
marijuana, a pound of hashish and 899 marijuana plants from Hayes'
Petaluma home in May 1999.

Hayes said he was growing marijuana for the 1,280-member buyers club,
but prosecutors contended he was dealing drugs, presenting jurors with
transaction records seized from the house.

The politically charged case pitted District Attorney Mike Mullins
against his San Francisco counterpart, Terence Hallinan, who testified
on behalf of the defendants.

Hallinan was a supporter of the 1996 initiative that allowed medical use
of marijuana with a doctor's approval. He also is a supporter of the San
Francisco buyers club where Hayes and Foley worked.

He criticized Mullins for pursuing charges against the men.

Mullins contends the law is vague and leaves important issues unsettled,
including how much marijuana users are allowed to possess. He also
believes the law doesn't allow for clubs like Hayes' that sell marijuana
to medical users, an issue now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.

After the verdict was returned Wednesday, Mullins said, "The jury has
spoken and what we need to do is listen," but he did not apologize for
prosecuting the case, which some jurors called a waste of taxpayer
dollars.

"The only way to attain clarity is to take cases to jury trial. Is it
expensive and wasteful? I wouldn't say it's wasteful. It's expensive,"
Mullins said.

He said the verdict underscores his belief that there needs to be some
clarification from the Legislature on the "vague and ambiguous" law that
allowed the use of medical marijuana.

"A host of issues need to be addressed if law enforcement is going to
assist in regulating this activity," he said.

Hayes and his attorney, William Panzer, a co-author of Proposition 215,
remained critical of Mullins and his stance prosecuting medical
marijuana cases.

"This jury did what the people intended when they passed Prop. 215,"
Panzer said. "Once they determined no one was getting rich and it was
going to sick and dying people, it was an easy decision."

A central question for the jury was whether Hayes could be considered a
caregiver to the 1,280 members of the San Francisco club, as defined
under the law allowing medical marijuana.

Juror Chris Walton, like other jurors, said she was able to accept the
concept that Hayes could be a caregiver to that many people, just as a
doctor or dentist can have more than 1,000 patients.

"You guys are really serving a need and the laws have to change," she
told Hayes and Foley after emerging from the jury room and putting on a
marijuana leaf lapel pin they handed her.

Hayes said the verdict reinforces the effort to remove prosecutors who
are seen as too harsh on medical marijuana cases, such as Marin County
District Attorney Paula Kamena, who faces a recall election next month.

"Unless (Mullins) changes the politics in Sonoma County he will be
bye-bye," Hayes said.

Hayes said that because the state and federal government haven't
implemented a distribution scheme for medical marijuana users,
"unfortunately it's up to individuals like myself to implement what
voters passed five years ago."

Hayes denied he made any profit by furnishing marijuana to the club.

"My true desire is to help people," he said. "I don't care if I'm paid
in chicken eggs, or with the satisfaction of making someone smile."

Medical marijuana advocates said the verdict sends a message to police
and prosecutors that they need to be more tolerant.

"Law enforcement in Sonoma County needs to get with the program," said
Ernest "Doc" Knapp, a spokesman for the Sonoma Alliance for Medical
Marijuana. "They've gotten four years of every message they can get."

In January, a Santa Rosa man was acquitted in another high-profile case
after a jury determined 109 marijuana plants he was growing were not too
many for his medical needs.

The trial that ended Wednesday was contentious and at times the acrimony
between attorneys carried outside the courtroom.

Mullins acknowledged Wednesday that midway through the trial, prosecutor
Carla Claeys went to a shooting range and fired at silhouette targets
with the names of defense attorneys Panzer and Nicole DeFever written on
them.

Mullins said Claeys described it as a joke that started when an
investigator from the District Attorney's Office wrote the names of the
lawyers on the targets and she shot at them.

During the trial, Judge Robert Boyd imposed a gag order prohibiting
attorneys from discussing the incident, which he described as "an
unfounded rumor."

He said he feared the information would get back to jurors.

Panzer was still upset about the target-shooting incident Wednesday,
saying it frightened him and verged on prosecutorial misconduct.

Claeys could not be reached for comment, and Mullins declined to say if
she will be subject to any discipline. "It's a personnel matter," he
said.