POT FARMERS' CASE MAY CLARIFY LAWS

POMONA - The case of three convicted Azusa pot farmers may help
clarify laws on how to legally grow medical marijuana, advocates said.

Bryn Anderson, 38, of Los Angeles; Paul Shaw, 35, of Azusa; and
Charles Newcomb, 47, of Azusa were convicted last week of cultivation
stemming from the seizure of 700 plants from an Azusa pot factory in May.

"The laws on growing medical marijuana are very broad, and a case
like this could be very important in setting a precedent for judges,"
said Bruce Margolin, a Los Angeles-based medical marijuana advocate
and lawyer who represented Newcomb in the early stages of the case.

The appeal in the case would be based on the refusal of Superior
Court Judge Charles Horan to allow evidence and witnesses that would
allegedly establish the men were growing medical marijuana, according
to Antonio Bestard, Newcomb's attorney.

The witnesses included the owner of a West Hollywood dispensary who
was prepared to testify that the group was growing marijuana for his
patients, according to court documents.

In addition to the grow house at 844 N. Vernon Ave., Newcomb was also
convicted of marijuana cultivation at his own home in Azusa, where he
had 14 marijuana plants growing in his backyard.

The court did not permit testimony of a medical marijuana
prescription holder who lawyers said would testify that Newcomb was
his caregiver, records show.

Horan found the defendants guilty and sentenced Anderson and Shaw to
120 days of county jail and three years of felony probation. He
sentenced Newcomb to 120 days in the county jail and three years and
eight months of felony probation.

Both Anderson and Newcomb said they were unhappy with their sentences
and wanted to make an appeal on principle.

"The judge gave us two choices, and neither one was any good," said
Anderson. "I didn't do anything wrong."

Anderson, who has a medical marijuana prescription, would be subject
to drug screening while on probation and would not be able to use
marijuana during that time.

"I am going to have to go back to Vicodin, and that just messes me
up," said Anderson, who says he uses medical marijuana for an old
stabbing injury to his hand suffered when he was working as a bouncer
at a club.

According to state law, a person on felony probation would have to
appeal to a judge to be allowed medical marijuana during their probation.

According to Margolin, the case would be the first court appeal in
large-scale growing operation case since the passage of SB420, a law
meant to clarify how medical marijuana prescription holders can
legally grow pot.

The law allows for a prescription holder or "primary caregiver" to
possess up to "six mature plants or 12 immature plants for each
qualified patient."

Margolin argues that the Anderson, Newcomb and Shaw can show they
were growing the marijuana for medical purposes if they were allowed
to present evidence linking them to patients at the West Hollywood
dispensary. He added Newcomb would be able to use the law to argue
that the crops at his house were a legal amount for him and the other
prescription holder.

But Horan said during a preliminary hearing in the case that the men
did not qualify as caregivers under the law.

"A caregiver would be someone with a good portion of their life spent
with a patient, like his mother," said Horan. "That's what caregiver
means, not somebody who decided to grow marijuana and sell it."

Horan also said during the hearing that there was evidence in the
case that suggested the defendants had profited from selling the pot.
He said the law states that it does not authorize "cultivating or
distributing marijuana for profit."

The same law allows for a patient or caregiver a "reasonable
compensation" for growing someone else's marijuana, leaving it
unclear whether a person can support themselves by growing medical
marijuana, or just cover their expenses.

Other cases involve dispensaries growing marijuana for patients,
Margolin said. But they are about distributing marijuana directly to
patients, rather than a separate establishment that grows marijuana
and distributes it to dispensaries, as defendants in the case say
they were doing, he said.

The case for the appeal is strong, said medical marijuana advocate
and expert witness Chris Conrad, who was slated to testify in the
case. A previous case in which the state appeals court threw out the
decision of a San Joaquin County court that refused to allow evidence
of a medical marijuana operation to be presented in court.

Conrad said the key to Anderson, Newcomb and Shaw's case would be
records documenting exactly to whom they were providing medical marijuana.

But, he said, medical marijuana providers are often nervous about
documentation because it creates a paper trail that could make them
subject to prosecution from the federal government, which does not
legally recognize any form of marijuana possession as legal.

"Records that exonerate them under state law convict them under
federal law," said Conrad. "It's a tough position to be in."