JUSTICE UP IN SMOKE

Re "Jurors regret pot verdict" (Feb. 4) and "Pot case jurors call for new
trial" (Feb. 5): It looks as if the jurors got hoodwinked. Apparently, it's
a fairer trial if the judge suppresses evidence that the defendant was
deputized by the city of Oakland to provide pot for medicinal purposes.
Since it's a federal court, it apparently doesn't matter that growing pot
for medicinal purposes is legal in California under Proposition 215.

I could see the prosecutor wanting to suppress that kind of information
because, of course, he wants to convict. But the judge should be more
interested in a fair trial, not in convicting.

If one wants to argue that the defendant was growing more than was allowed
under Proposition 215, go ahead and argue that, but for heaven's sake,
don't hide the fact that he was growing at least some of it under the
auspices of the city of Oakland.

- - Chris Gray, Woodland