BEAT MARIJUANA CHARGES WITHOUT PLEA BARGAINING
By John Kelly, is now available as an ebook through Amazon.com!
June 29, 2012, 45 minute interview John Kelly on Cannabis Nation Radio
John Kelly's article released in The Guardian UK.
"A Miscarriage Of Justice On Marijuana"
US police are using a flawed scientific test in drugs busts that gives 'false positives' to strongarm citizens into plea bargaining
WOMAN AWARDED $185,000 FOR FALSE POSITIVE!!
We have uncovered a little-known, remarkable legal/scientific study by no fewer than 14 scientists, two attorneys, and a U.S. Customs official which unequivocally demonstrated that the Duquenois-Levine color chemical test alone or in combination with a microscopic exam does not prove the presence of marijuana in a seized substance.
When one is arrested for marijuana charges, regardless of the circumstances or what the person believes he/she possesses, the prosecution has to subsequently scientifically prove the presence of marijuana in any seized substance. The most commonly used test is the Duquenois-Levine. But as the study showed, the Duquenois-Levine test does not prove the presence of marijuana. Theoretically then, if the defense attorney working with an expert, challenges the “proof,” the case should be dismissed.
This is exactly what happened with the lead scientist of the study, Marc Kurzman, who is also a marijuana defense attorney. Working with an expert, he challenged use of the Duquenois-Levine test and was able to obtain many dismissals and acquittals. As he reported: “A particularly notable trial recently was held in North Dakota which included this ‘best scientific evidence principle’ – specifically for the testing of presumed Cannabis. The Honorable Ralph B. Maxwell. Presiding Judge of the 1st Jud. Dist. of North Dakota, gave a judgment of acquittal in the marijuana sale case of North Dakota v. Ethyell. Within hours after the conclusion of that trial, three marijuana sale cases, one LSD sale case, and one heroin sale case (scheduled on the court calendar immediately after the Ethyell trial) were dropped by the State Prosecutor’s office (in view of certain acquittals based on the Ethyell decision). . . .
“After an initial flurry of acquittals, we find many state and city prosecutors and/or chemists reluctant to participate in a case where they know they’ll be facing an attorney and a scientist who are fully aware of the inadequacies of the common forensic tests used for marijuana ‘identification.’ Accordingly, prosecutors are beginning to dismiss marijuana cases. In fact, seven such ‘day before trial dismissals’ (out of eight scheduled trials) were achieved by Dr. Kurzman in the weeks preceding completion of this paper. In those instances where the issues presented herein have been carefully prepared and argued by defense attorneys, we have noted exceptional ‘deals’ being offered by prosecutors in an attempt to forego lengthy litigation.”
We are working with two court-certified marijuana defense experts to whom you may direct questions if you or someone you know has been arrested on marijuana charges. One of our experts is a Ph.D. chemist who published a peer-reviewed article confirming the study by Kurzman.
John Kelly, has been involved in cases challenging the Duquenois-Levine test wherein charges were dismissed. In addition, he can provide extensive information and documents and concrete advice, in plain English, for effectively challenging all aspects of the prosecution’s case. For example, he can provide all the articles confirming that the Duquenois-Levine test does not prove the presence of marijuana as well as State, Federal, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions which agree.
What we have to present to anyone who is facing a marijuana possession charge is helpful information that is backed by a lot of research in forensic science, evidence, and actual cases that have been successful with using the strategies found here.