project what we're asking this honorable court to do was to reverse his conviction and remand his case for a new trial as justice kennedy said in lawrence versus texas times can blind us to certain truths that later generations can see the laws once thought necessary and proper in fact the only serve to oppress now that was justice kennedy was referring to the sodomy laws and soon we believe that marijuana prohibition will likewise be seen as oppressive that it's going  modify its holding in whitfield we do understand that we're asking for something that has not been done for we're asking this court to treat marijuana differently in part because in the real reason is because of the way the federal government has in a sense they have decided not to prosecute marijuana production in a majority of states for them to do they have decided that but let's suppose that the marijuana in question has never left the amendment and complied with the medical marijuana laws of that state then that is a as a court knows the rohrbacher farm it is a writer on the appropriations clause the federal government would be prohibited from prosecuting production of marijuana now as far as in mr monson's case if he just grew the marijuana in oregon and now we know that the laws are have been expanded least at the state levels to allow recreational marijuana not just medical marijuana which is what the what the role of opera farm in mn addresses we know that you know we know that you know that he could be prosecuted the reality is because that marijuana never ended up who was the codefendant one of the co defendants the only codefendant he knew his longtime girlfriend she approached him and said you know you're buying these land these properties in oregon you should let me go on to the property because i have experience because syndicate in iowa and she was taking this marijuana and selling it in crossing state lines and selling it in iowa now the federal government has decided as i indicated not to prosecute marijuana production in a majority of the states when the political climate is favoring to criminalization and legalization if you take a substance like heroin it's obviously prince prohibited everywhere and it's prosecuted everywhere the the issue with marijuana is the growing of marijuana in states is being respected by the federal government overwhelmingly private businesses and states are reaping millions of dollars in tax revenue from the production and sale of marijuana why should iowa correct well my understanding is in iowa they are now there is now  so it's simply not right to punish mr i'm a whopping to have him bear this burden that no one else is having to bear it's not right it violates due process to hail someone across the country when they're growing marijuana legally in a state such as in oregon and unbeknownst to them that marijuana ends up in a state where they are subjected to a federal prosecution if i may shift to address the jury questions is that procedural due process or substantive due process that you well i i would have to i would say procedural but i recognize that you know jill's jury deliberations the jurors sent a a note a question and question was can the defense attorney call witnesses to the stand that are on the government list we are specifically asking about the when the court the only response the court should have made was more watkins not calling the witness calling the witness cannot be considered against him period but the court went further the court went on to talk about the compulsory process the court said oh yes the defendant has the right under the constitution of compulsory process which means he can call witnesses whether or not they are on the government's list or not but also remember that a defendant has no burden of proof here or any duty to call witnesses or present evidence the problem with that answer is that the the judge needs to understand that no is audience and in this case this answer was more it's more suitable if you're you're teaching a clas constitutional law you're dressing other lawyers these are lay persons these are lay persons that don't understand they don't deal with these terms of reasonable doubt burdens of proof compulsory process you don't deal with these on a daily basis all the judge had to do was tell the jurors too that they were not to consider not to consider that just to consider the jury instructions and the evidence before them the court's instruction in this case was an abuse of discretion and shifted the burden of proof to to the defense finally as far as the other the other jury question the st question was must a this was a question three last questions asked two questions and that must a defendant in a conspiracy instruction seven he read that it's an entirety the nd question dealt with does the defendant have to know of have knowledge of intent or pot being sold and delivered to iowa and the answer to that the judge provided was no again that  totally unnecessary all the judge had to do was to tell the jurors to refer to the instructions and not answer the questions for them the judge in a very powerful position that the jurors listen to that judge and give that that judge's words you know of importance as they should jurors are even told that what the lawyers tell them is not evidence so in light of that looks like i'm i'm over my my time allotment month let me ask you  good morning your hours may please the court mr prairie auntie this is melissa is there on behalf of the government this case involved a sophisticated conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana  several area and which the defendant was not in compliance with the oregon law dated before the marijuana was not only going to iowa but it was going as are states across the nation the marijuana according to oregon law belongs to the patient and the growers did not have authority outside of the pace and telling them what to do with the excess marijuana if in so in that the defense brief he and the case that the heart of the issue as to the jury instruction and number three excuse me the jury question he said is the defendant knew that the marijuana was being sought not legally an organ but illegally and i up and he says that that goes to you and heads and venue and so that's why and i'm sorry w recruited grow word to go up to oregon participate in the daily grow operation as they were growing the marijuana as they were and all along daily contact with  marijuana as far as at the time that mr miscarrying or talks about how it was illegal to sign up patients who were out of state at the time that mr miller was in did that it was legal the law later changed under oregon state law not calling her to identify him so that is not true mr heebie was one of the witnesses that testified and had come down to las vegas but when asked to identify mr waffen he could not do so in court  as far as these technical there are technical violations we don't believe that that by itself should should have subject him to federal prosecution as far as mr marois pin he's basic his his his the main role of mr whopping was financing this and he was someone who had the money to buy these two lots of land the draper property and the deer creek property these were two properties he bought which with the intent to speculate to las vegas he was not involved in growing it as far as the mystery or says that again this is the she refers to the jury instruction regarding the the burden of proof the compulsory process she says well that's a true statement of the law again why go there why why not just say that mr matson's failure to call witnesses is something that can't be held against him it creates creates too much confusion i think for jurors when they're having to consider this new concept something never heard about called a compulsory process it gets them wondering why didn't you and you will open the door to that sort of instruction by arguing that there was some testimony out there that the government chose to hype jury well what happened was your honor they there was a witness they indicated that they were going to call the mrs they had all these people on the rightness list and then when their when when they realized that the witnesses were not backing up the story that it was mr my wife and you know that they were not able to identify him then and that's what happened is that they you know they didn't call mr wynn because he was not able to corroborate their story