D.A. DISMISSES DOOBIE DOZEN DEFENDANTS--FOR NOW

When 12 local medical marijuana providers were arrested in late
December 2010, the then-head of the now-defunct SLO County Narcotics
Task Force predicted that the "concrete proof" collected against them
would lead to 12 full convictions.

But on Jan. 17, 2012-after more than a year of courtroom hearings and
exhausting hours spent arguing over motions and jury instructions-the
SLO County District Attorney's Office admitted it couldn't proceed
with its cases against six of the nine remaining Doobie Dozen defendants.

As a result, Superior Court Judge Barry LaBarbera dismissed all
charges against defendants Chris and Amy Austin, David and Valerie
Hosking, Thomas Sandercock, and Steven Gordon. Charges filed against
the various defendants ranged from possession of marijuana for sale
to child endangerment.

As of press time, another defendant, Peter Miller, was scheduled to
face a similar dismissal on Jan. 18.

Deputy District Attorney Craig Van Rooyen told New Times the
prosecutors had previously made the decision to send the cases to
state appellate court when it appeared the local court wasn't
receptive to its interpretation of state medical marijuana laws. The
appeal to the state may provide clarity on the law, he said.

The prosecution and defense had squared off for months over a set of
jury instructions that, in the final version, laid out state medical
marijuana law in simple terms that were favorable for the defense.
Early on in the case, the District Attorney's Office unsuccessfully
attempted to prohibit the defendants from using the words "medical
marijuana" and "collectives." "It is the People's position given the
court's ruling asserting that the collective defense should be
[allowed], and that the court ruled that the jury would be given [the
finalized instructions], that the People are unable to proceed to
trial in these cases," Van Rooyen told LaBarbera.

If an appeal is made, the District Attorney's Office is required to
appeal the court's ruling to the Second District Court of Appeals
within 10 days. Should the district court favor the appeal, the cases
could go back to a local judge.

"What a waste," said defendant Miller. "We could have been where
we're at today over six months ago."

During the appeal process, which could take years to complete, law
enforcement officials may hold onto the former defendants'
confiscated possessions, including cash, bank accounts, computers,
and medicinal marijuana. Defense attorney Patrick Fisher told New
Times he plans to file motions to return his clients' possessions,
but conceded it will be difficult.

"I expect another long process where we don't have anything for a
couple months," Fisher said. "The marijuana probably won't be
returned [since the cases are technically ongoing], but the bank
accounts, I can't see a good reason why [prosecutors] need that. But
the court will probably deny that."

He estimated the attention given to his clients' cases has helped to
effectively end local law enforcement investigations of medical
marijuana providers, but the long-term significance could come from
the state if the case sets a legal precedent.

Following the dismissals, former defendants said the victory was
bittersweet and added they would have liked to have gone to trial so
they could get on with their lives.

"It's like a game of chess where you have your opponent in check
mate, and they're like, 'No you don't,'" said former defendant David
Hosking. "It's like this is one big game to [the prosecutors]."