MarijuanaManifest.com is committed to telling the absolute truth about marijuana. For over 5 years, MarijuanaManifest.com has been educating everyone we can about the war on cannabis, and helping defendants arrested for cannabis beat the junk science used by police field tests in court to convict people.
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 et al. A one-time, free expert consultation regarding your case is also available by contacting John Kelly at email@example.com. John 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.
This site will never waiver from telling it's visitors the absolute truth about marijuana. No fear mongering, no propaganda, just the facts! If you notice, there are no ads here! This site is for educational purposes, and we are not here to sell you stuff.
Sign up to hear from us.
The active component of the marijuana plant, cannabinoids, have shown to inhibit tumor growth and kill cancer cells in lab testings. We work with a number of patients who use cannabis to treat their cancer and suppress it's side effects.
Medical marijuana contains antispasmodic qualities which relax muscles and has shown to be an effective treatment for seizures. Marijuana oils that are rich in cannabidol (CBD), are the preferred method for treatment.
Patients who suffer from chronic pain caused by diabetes, cancer, MS, HIV, and other diseases have been turning to medical marijuana as a way to treat their pain without the use of addictive pharmaceutical medications.
Since Director Harry Anslinger of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and a number of attorneys and scientists first met in Washington, D.C. in 1937 to figure out how to convince the US Congress to pass the Marijuana Tax Control Act the same question has lingered and never been answered. That question has been: Can scientists uniquely identify marijuana to the exclusion of all other plants utilizing a forensic analytical protocol which was in place at the time? The protocol which was proposed required the use of microscopic analysis to determine the presence of specialized cell structures on the surface of alleged marijuana leaves as well as the subjection of the plant material to a chemical test referred to as the Duquenois-Levine test. No attempt was made to determine if the protocol gave the correct answer until Dr. George Nakamura's 1969 paper describing a limited validation. Quickly following his paper however, Marc Kurzman published a review of Nakamura's work and found that despite his efforts, Nakamura still had not answered the fundamental question: "Is this marijuana to the exclusion of all other plants?"
To date, in a country which arrests between 800,000 and 1,000,000 citizens per year for marijuana related charges, 80% of which are for mere possession for use, this question still has not been answered. In other words, no one knows in any court of law if the material which is being "identified" as marijuana is actually marijuana. After years of research I found myself very frustrated with this situation and, armed with a large cache of scientific literature sought a manner in which I could enter these thoughts and receive feedback from other interested parties. I have found that law enforcement personnel, whether they be on the street or in the lab, have absolutely no interest in addressing this issue and will not speak about it. But they are paid by the rest of us and will listen if their pay checks depend upon them listening. It was in the middle of this search for reason that I met Guy Peterson, coincidentally, on a plane. Guy and I entered into this discussion openly, I opposing legalization and he for legalization of marijuana. With skills from a generation behind me, Guy devised this web site, www.marijuanamanifest.com on which we could discuss this issue. Our hope is that we can draw attention to the problem that this inability to identify marijuana represents. The plant actually allows us a window into the soul of our justice system. We can prove with sound logic that we do not know if the material we have is marijuana and yet we will not present that in court. All we know is that the characteristics that we observe are observed when we have marijuana but we don't know how many other plants would also pass this test and give us false positives. My hope is that this website might be helpful in finding the answer to the questions Guy and I and others continue to ask about this issue. We invite others to weigh in on this, to offer suggestions, to take away from the site a more educated understanding, educated by scientific literature on the issue. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D.Attorney at Law, Forensic ConsultantPO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812
252 825 1123
Marijuana Manifest has provided an invaluable resource -- for both attorneys and laymen -- exposing the fallacies of marijuana analysis. In many ways, there are similarities to the continuing reliance upon unreliable and inaccurate breathalyzers in DUI investigations -- and involving many of the same violations of constitutional rights.
Lawrence Taylor, author of Drunk Driving Defense, 7th edition
Practice limited to DUI defense exclusively Los Angeles, California
I recently applied procedures prescribed in this website and used information provided by Frederick Whitehurst to successfully challenge the sufficiency of evidence of the Duquenois-Levine test and the microscopic exam as well as the testing of the prosecutor's drug analyst in a marijuana case. Following an evidentiary hearing and my cross examination of the prosecutor's drug analyst, I filed a motion to exclude the government's evidence. Even before the judge rendered a decision, the prosecutor withdrew all charges, and the case was dismissed.
Please feel free to contact a member of our staff directly with any questions, comments. If you are looking for a drug test expert witness referral, or a cannabis friendly lawyer referral.
Junk science equals false justice