SF'S D.A. TESTIFIES AT MEDICAL POT TRIAL

In Supporting Defendants, Hallinan Denies 'dueling' With Sonoma County
Prosecutor

Santa Rosa - San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan took the
unusual step Tuesday of testifying for the defense in a Sonoma County
marijuana trial.

Hallinan's willingness to oppose Sonoma County District Attorney Mike
Mullins underscored the ambiguities in California's 1996 medical marijuana law.

Although Hallinan insisted he's "not dueling with Mike Mullins," he said he
hopes the jury will send Mullins a message by acquitting two men who say
they were growing marijuana for medical users.

"I told Mr. Mullins I do not think his prosecution is right," Hallinan said
outside court.

He said Mullins should re-examine his "reluctance to go along with Prop.
215," the 1996 initiative that allows marijuana use for medical purposes.

Mullins declined comment, citing the trial of Kenneth E. Hayes and Michael
S. Foley.

They are charged with cultivating marijuana for sale but contend they were
legally supplying members of a San Francisco cannabis buyers club who had
physicians' approval to use marijuana.

Hallinan called Hayes "a guy, who in my opinion, is performing a public
service in San Francisco in terms of helping a lot of sick people alleviate
their suffering by supplying them with marijuana."

A political maverick who worked as a criminal defense attorney and served
on the Board of Supervisors before being elected San Francisco's top
prosecutor six years ago, Hallinan is an outspoken supporter of medical
marijuana.

Mullins, on the other hand, has expressed opposition to cannabis clubs and
pursued several cases involving people who claim to be medical users of
marijauna.

Before this trial got under way, he said San Francisco clubs aren't
entitled to grow marijuana in Sonoma County and suggested Golden Gate Park
might be a better place for pot farming.

Speaking to reporters outside court Tuesday, Hallinan called Mullins'
comment "ridiculous," saying people do grow marijuana in San Francisco for
medical purposes and the law has statewide application.

"It is not legitimate for one county to say it can happen here and not
there, or there and not here," Hallinan said.

The San Francisco prosecutor spent about 90 minutes on the stand. He was
challenged by prosecutor Carla Claeys -- his one-time law clerk -- about
his lack of first-hand knowledge about the Petaluma marijuana growing
operation run by Hayes and Foley.

Claeys is seeking to prove that the defendants illegally profited from the
899-plant farm on King Road, using "pay-and-owe" sheets seized at the house
as evidence they were selling marijuana to people other than the 1,280
members of the San Francisco club.

Hallinan acknowledged under cross-examination that he had never been to the
residence and did not know if Hayes was buying and selling hashish.
Authorities seized a pound of hash at the residence, along with a .22
rifle, both of which also are part of the charges.

"Did you know they purchased through the black market?" Claeys asked.

"No, that would be something I would avoid," Hallinan replied. He also
noted Proposition 215 does not address how patients are supposed to obtain
marijuana.

Hallinan said he has known Hayes for a number of years and he made three
visits to the Castro district buyers club that Hayes managed.

He said he was satisfied that the club, called Cannabis Helping Alleviate
Medical Problems, was operating legally and that Hayes helped institute a
registration system with the city's Health Department.

A provision of Proposition 215 allows caregivers to provide marijuana for
approved patients, and Hallinan said he told Hayes it was better for him to
grow marijuana in that role.

Hayes has said he wanted to grow his own to cut the cost and ensure it was
not contaminated by pesticides.

Defense attorney William Panzer suggested in his questioning that any
mark-up in the price was to cover Hayes' expenses for procuring marijuana,
something courts have allowed primary caregivers to do.

During cross-examination, Claeys questioned Hallinan about official ballot
arguments he signed in favor of Proposition 215.

She pointed out that his written rebuttal to the argument against
Proposition 215 said the initiative would not allow unlimited quantities of
marijuana to be grown anywhere and it only allows marijuana to be grown for
a patient's personal use.

She had Hallinan read aloud to the jury his ballot argument that "police
officers can still arrest anyone who grows too much or tries to sell it."