rebuttal starting with the medicinal marijuana issue let me be the first to observe and i suspect a lot of people will be referring to this but let me be the first to observe that this argument is occurring on the day of the california recall election and in the case of mr hassel he is much less concerned with who wins that election because each of the six major candidates each and every one of them has indicated publicly as part of their campaign their support for the right of people like mr hassel to in his belief pursuits california law none of these things in and of themselves are the founds to the charge of assaulting a federal officer and any of the candidates indicated support the use of marijuana in the courtroom i don't believe that's been an issue but i do have to say that the things that i've just referred to are clearly a part of the factual context of what happened in this case and that means that unless we change the meaning of the word relevance for medicinal marijuana cases that the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes it's at least relevant to both the prosecution and to the defense in many cases not all but many cases and what bothers me about this case is that there seems to be a different standard of relevance applied when medicinal marijuana is involved it seems that in the federal government's rush to affirm that they have the final say about whether  the government filed a motion which is in my ask service records motion and limited to exclude the medicinal marijuana evidence it was i think two paragraphs long there was no opposition filed when the parties came to court the court announced that it was going to gra the motion and then after that that's when mr hassel objected and when his attorney said oh and by the way we just feel that he has to be able to show that he's not just a scofflaw who likes to smoke marijuana in courtrooms but that he has a legitimate prior incident was going to be allowed to be presented to the during our group round of the record is somewhat confuse the way i remember it and the way i understand it is that the courts you know look i'm not going to say what mr hassel himself and saying but if he wants to call for example the physician who prescribed them in this mold marijuana for him if you want to put on any witnesses who will say you know i had to take this because i'm i'm terminally ill you know i need this because my you know prescribed it and so on that he's going to exclude that evidence and that if mr hassel were to say anything on his own behalf on that issue that the court would instruct the jury and comments upon  i mean it was pretty clear that the court wasn't going to allow it and furthermore i think that the even if the government had produced and produced evidence on the former in by bringing in the evidence that are left over after he had been cited by the same officer for the same offense the use of the small marijuana in the courtroom but the court said well i have to think about that you know i don't know what i would do in that case and it never really was resolved expressed some thought that that might happen but i don't think you actually will take that and nor do i think we know whether the government was going it would have ultimately introduced that evidence from going back to judge christians question have one one particular witness one particular piece of evidence but you can do something else in this case it was his entire the pats it was his defense that was excluded because unless he can say why he was smoking marijuana what the one of the very first hearings in this case and the government has an additional burden of proving that there was not a reasonable act of self defense i have i'm sorry of the exact quote in my brief and here that issue was raised wonderful friend understand why smoking marijuana in the federal courthouse is relevant to his defense of self defense what is it about that mr hassel was as the record reflects a disabled and very sick man who was smoking on the advice and with prescription of a physician who had been cited by the same officer for medicinal marijuana use in the same courthouse previously and it is relevant to both what the officer knew whether whether it was reasonable for him to apply a chokehold to subdue the man who previously he'd simply issued a citation to whether it was reasonable for mr hassel to to believe that the force used was excessive that there may have been some of the reason for the force that was used such as racial animus which is something that he raised before the district court i mean again we come back to what is relevant and what is the meaning of problems and i think think i know that the record indicates and he says that he's disabled i don't know the details of it i'm sorry you know think it is important i think the fact that he is disabled is very relevant to whether the use the force used you know if he's totally disabled not service connected the can't work you can get a pension  my name is mind that i represent the united states the appellee and that's not our your honor the issue of the marijuana and the use of marijuana by the defendant believe raises three issues what exactly is relevant about the defend of marijuana in court the issue of is it relevant that it was using marijuana in federal court on the day of the assault there's the issue of whether or not the defendant's disability is relevant for the jury and there's the third issue that the defendant trying to the hellen is trying to right now whether or not the purpose for which the defendant was using the marijuana is relevant the government and the district court agreed that the defendant's use of marijuana in the courtroom is relevant that was part and parcel of the incident he was smoking marijuana and that's why he was approached by the officer the second issue whether the defendant's disability would be relevant for some defense regarding excessive force that wasn't exploited by the court wasn't requested to be excluded by the government  third issue the reason why the defendant was smoking marijuana that was irrelevant that wasn't relevant to any of the issues that trial that's relevant to any of the elements of the offense and that was the sole issue that the government  requested that the district court explain that the district court did exclude the government and just as did file a motion it wasn't two paragraphs it was i believe five pages and we laid out in  received dr tesla's report back which stated that the defendant was most likely competent and the term was most likely dr kessler laid out the defendant's psychiatric history and mental state based on that report i took it back to my supervisor to alert my office to the fact that the defendant had a twenty year psychiatric history that the defend it was most likely competent was this the type of defendant we wanted to prosecute my office at that point agreed that we could go forward with pretrial diversion because defendant had very strong opinions i don't believe he would have agreed to stipulate on anything i'm basing my particular experience in the case secondly i think it was very relevant for the jury to know that the defendant was approached by an officer first specific reason in federal court and when the o this is the incident that took place this wasn't the first time the defendant had had an interaction with this officer in fact several months prior to that he had had an interaction that was non confrontational where the officer merely cited him and they both went on their way there was no negative interaction on either side so i think it was relevant for the jury to know that first of all the defendant didn't know that this individual was an officer and that goes to his intact if he knew that the individual was an officer why was he resisting at that point that's an issue for the crowded with people and matters were about to be heard the officer tried to have him removed from the courtroom briefly or to have him stop smoking marijuana for that the court proceedings could take place if he issued in the citation mr hassel would have remained in the room and the proceedings would not have been and it was handled by the chief law clerk who is with the u s attorney's office when she came out to begin the matters the courtroom was crowded with people and she approached mr haskell and told him that he was not allowed to smoke in the federal building she continued to smoke honor that that could happen i think that it's really not the issue the defendant my understanding was was going to testify and the reason he wanted to testify i believe and to have a forum in federal court was because he wanted his the problem with that your honor is that if we had tried to limit our case what our case was about the defendant who wasn't i know the only witness who was going to be testifying the defense was not going to be limiting any of his tax money the court said that it's almost impossible to do  history so that the jury understood the intense just the object of jackson's well and then the jury's already heard it and the defendant the judge would have told me this regard well the problem with that your honor is having spent a number of different court sessions with the defendant he was not an individual who was going to be easily controlled by the court he was not an individual that was going to be told what he could and could not say so i believe those issues would have been brought out present yuri a number of times and that the jury would have been left wondering why the united states had  failed to tell it what the real facts of the case were