Posted on August 13 at 7:08 a.m.

I blame the doctors that recommend the marijuana. Had they been vigilent to only recommend to people that truly need it, the feds would not have gotten involved. I think we all know people who have a recommedation that don't need it. Once the feds preceived the law as being abused they jumped in. I feel bad for all the people that are going to lose their medicine from this but I think there is plenty of blame to go around for why the feds are getting involved starting with the doctors.

On Shakedown From Feds Imperils Medicinal Marijuana

Posted on August 9 at 7:32 a.m.

Herschel, So you have been "following" this case. Oh well excuse me, I had no idea. I guess we don't need evidence presented to a jury because good ol Herschel has been "following" the case. Let's just excuse the jury on this case and have you make the call. Look, you are intitled to your opinon, but that doesn't make it an informed one. A trial by jury in America is still the best way to determine criminal liability. In any event, it doesn't even matter who the stabber was if the stabber was in the same group as Juarez. My understanding is that it is like a get away driver in a bank robbery that can be charged with murder if someone in the bank is killed. You go as a group somewhere to committ crime, you are liable for all your associates actions. I am not sure if that is the same thing here, but I think it is. You may not agree with that, but if that is the law, then I don't think it matters who the stabber was. In any event, let's just trust our jury system to make the right decision.

On Attorneys Give Opening Arguments in Juarez Gang Murder Trial

Posted on August 8 at 2:45 p.m.

Seriously Herschel Greenspan? You read an article about the opening statements in a murder trial and you have deduced that the defendant is being railroaded. That may be one of the most ignorant comments I have ever read. Feel free to keep an open mind until all the evidence has been presented by both sides.

On Attorneys Give Opening Arguments in Juarez Gang Murder Trial

Posted on March 24 at 4:49 p.m.

Get over yourself Nick Welsh and the Independent. This is not about protecting a confidential source. By taking photos of a crime scene while possible suspects are around the area, that photographer became what is called a "percipiant witness." Holding press credentials does not make you immune from becoming a witness. By taking pictures those pictures are real evidence of a crime (or the aftermath of a crime, which sometimes holds a wealth of information). I understand if you get information from someone who was there and they want to remain confidential, that you should not have to reveal that source. Don't get me wrong, I get that, and I support the law in that type of case. But in that type of situation you are just receiving second hand information, thus you are not a witness to any actual event, you are just being told what happend by a witness. That is not the case here. The photograher became a precipiant witness to things as they were occuring and his photos are real evidence. There is a reason the judge ruled that you must turn the photos over and there is a reason that the California Supreme Court did not even bother to review it. The reason is that the law is clear on this point, the photos need to be turned over. What troubles me is that your readers who are not familiar with the law in this area will actually take your opinion piece as fact regarding the law in this case, and assume that you somehow have a better understanding of the law in this area than a judge, which, with all due respect, you simple don't have. He wasn't wrong Nick, you and the Independant were wrong. Nick, please allow an educated attorney in this area who's opinion differs from your and the Independent to explain the other side in your column next week.

On Dog Got Your Tongue?

Posted on December 20 at 4:51 p.m.

You are missing the point of the prosecutor. She was saying that since it is true that a rape can occur with no traces of the rapist's DNA on the victim we must then look at the other evidence, as they did before the advent of DNA evidence. In this case the victim clearly identified the rapist. There was no evidence that the victim "blacked out." Defense had a chance to show she had "blacked out." and they obviously failed. Without the DNA evidence isn't it clear that the jury just simply beleived the victim when she said the defendant raped her and did not buy the defense that she "blacked out" and misidentified the rapist. Before DNA I would asume that is how cases were proven.

On Former Soccer Star Faces Eight Years Behind Bars