Oklahoma Criminal Defense Blog

A very big Mexican drug kingpin was sentenced in Houston to a 25-year sentence.  The sentencing hearing was done in a closed courtroom.  Osiel Cardenas Guillen was the head of the “Gulf Cartel” until his arrest by Mexican authorities in 2007.  He pled guilty to five counts of a lengthy indictment, which included drug trafficking, money laundering and the attempted murder and assault of federal agents.  He also forfeited $50 million in assets to the U.S. Government.

The Gulf Cartel controls much of the cocaine traffic across the Mexican-American border in South Texas.  Cardenas was responsible for “kidnapings, extortion, gun battles in the streets,” according to U.S. District Judge Hilda Tagle, who sentenced Cardenas.

Nevertheless, Judge Tagle followed the recommendation of the U.S. Attorney in giving the sentence because C rdenas was cooperating with the government in pursuing other drug traffickers.

Before he was arrested by Mexican authorities in 2003, Cardenas ran an empire of drug smugglers and gunmen in Tamaulipas, Mexico.  They moved tons of cocaine every year into the United States.  He was famous to law enforcement on both sides of the border for the vicious violence he employed against his enemies. He recruited former military commandoes as his gunmen, known as Zetas.
Even after his arrest, he continued to direct the operations of his cartel from his Mexican jail cell.  Then Mexican President Felipe Calderon broke with previous policy and extradited Cardenas along with 14 other major figures from the Mexican underworld.  Cardenas began cooperating with the U.S. Government immediately when he arrived here.  Meanwhile, his former organization has been weakened by arrests and lack of leadership.

The Zetas have now broken off from the Gulf Cartel. They have become a separate criminal enterprise that controls the crossing at Laredo, Texas, and recently there has been a series of gun battles between the Zetas and what is left of the Gulf Cartel in the towns along the Texas border in a contest for turf.

Cardenas has been in the United States for two years, cooperating with law enforcement all the time, perhaps especially cooperating on the Zetas, since they have split with his Gulf Cartel.  Finally, his sentence was handed down in a courtroom, closed to the public.  Judge Tagle also sealed dozens of documents related to Cardenas’ plea agreement and descriptions of his assets, all at the request of government prosecutors.  It is not unusual to seal documents in a case, but it is very unusual to lock a courtroom for a hearing in a United States Courthouse.

The sentencing hearing was attended by two members of Cardenas family and some law enforcement officers, along with armed guards.  The hearing was not even on the court’s published docket until hours after it was over.   The transcript taken of the hearing reflects that the judge explained the United States Marshal’s Service had asked to keep the public from witnessing the hearing because it would jeopardize Ca rdenas’ safety.  The affidavit detailing that request was sealed.  Judge Tagle stated that if she opened the hearing, the “defendant, court personnel, United States marshal personnel, other courthouse personnel and the general public will be placed in imminent danger.”

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed U.S. District Court Judge Ronald A. White’s dismissal in September, 2007, of a pitiful lawsuit brought by former Ada District Attorney Bill Peterson against author John Gresham and others.  The lawsuit was filed in the Muskogee in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma by Richardson.  Richardson is certainly a capable lawyer, but the journalists noted that he had called a news conference when he filed the lawsuit and “could not be reached” to comment on the affirmance of the dismissal.

Former Pontotoc County District Attorney Bill Peterson filed the lawsuit over John Gresham’s book, “The Innocent Man,” which described Peterson’s conviction of two innocent men based in reliance upon the testimony of one Glen Gore and the evidence of jailhouse “snitches.”  Dennis Fritz, then a schoolteacher, and his friend, Ronald Williamson, a former minor-league baseball player, were the two convicted in Pontotoc County District Court in 1982.
Fritz received a life sentence and Williamson received the death penalty.  Both men were later exonerated by DNA tests in 1999.  Not only were the accused men proven to be innocent, but the prosecution’s star witness, Glen Gore, was proven by DNA evidence to have been the perpetrator of the murder.  He is now serving a sentence of life without parole, tried for murder after the release of Fritz and Williamson.

Gresham’s book details the faulty police and prosecution work that never investigated Glen Gore, that relied on “confessions” that resulted form questionable interrogation of the suspects as well as the reliance on jailhouse informers, known as “snitches.”   Snitches, as every criminal defense lawyer knows, are motivated by presenting as much damaging evidence as possible against whoever is being prosecuted.  Their situation requires them to help the prosecution as much as possible, and they have a motive to lie, have a motive to create false evidence.  Whether they do create false evidence in a given case is difficult for a jury to judge.  A reader of “The Innocent Man” wondered just how much instigation there was from the police and prosecution to obtain the snitch testimony, but it was clear that the prosecution never hesitated in taking it at face value to help their case.

Joining Bill Peterson as co-plaintiffs were former state criminologist Melvin Hett and former Shawnee police officer Gary Rogers.  Defendants in the case were John Gresham, well-known attorney Barr Scheck, Gresham’s publisher, Doubleday Dell Publishing Group and Robert Mayer, author of “The Dreams of Ada,” a nonfiction book about the 1984 murder in Ada, Oklahoma, and the conviction for that murder of Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot.  Ward and Fontenoy, who are still in prison, were convicted by jailhouse snitch testimony, similar to that used to convict Fritz and Williamson.

This lawsuit never did not appear to have any legs when it was filed because it was based on a claim of libel brought by public officials. This is First Amendment territory, the “free speech” area that courts have repeatedly ruled should remain hands-off to the courts, and a complaint brought by public officials, who have been held to be less deserving of court protection.  The Tenth Circuit Court opinion pointed to an Oklahoma Statute that provides “criticism upon the official acts of any and all public officers” cannot be considered libelous unless a defendant makes a false allegation that official engaged in criminal behavior.

When the lawsuit was filed, Ron Fritz was quoted as saying, “ The only reason [Peterson’s] filing this is he’s trying to wipe the egg off his face because he convicted two innocent men.”  It certainly looks that way.

So many federal agents were moved to counter-terrorism investigations after the 9/11 attacks that the prosecution of more traditional crimes could not be given much attention.  Carter Stewart, newly-appointed United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio is going to change that.

Stewart’s district includes Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton and all of southern Ohio.  “I would like to have more resources go back to our bread-and-butter cases,” Stewart said.  By “bread-and-butter,” Stewart referred to his priorities: financial crime, mortgage fraud, public corruption, environmental crime and the exploitation of children.  Criminal defense lawyers know those are traditional areas of federal prosecution because local law enforcement usually do not have the expertise or resources to pursue crimes in those areas.

Financial crimes and mortgage frauds obviously require experts in tracking down long, often sophisticated paper trials, sometimes in dealings local law enforcement personnel have never heard of.  Public Corruption focuses on the wrong-doing of state and local politicians, so state and local prosecutors have an obvious conflict, assuming they even want to pursue the wrong-doers in any given case.  Environmental crimes require specific expertises and can cross state lines.  Exploitation of children, most commonly prostitution of children, often requires investigations across state lines as the prostitutes are moved to locations like truck stops in various cities.

In Oklahoma, federal prosecutors have continued to prosecute the crimes they traditionally pursued, in addition to national security/counter-terrorism: more commonly those in the areas of drug distribution conspiracies, violent crimes, public corruption, and white collar crimes, child computer crimes, and gun possession charges on previously-convicted felons.

The headquarters of the F.B.I. for years after 9/11 decreed that counter-terrorism shall dominate all resources.   What was surprising was how much withdrawal there was from other areas of investigation in some districts.  In those years after 9/11, Ohio had several cases of alleged terrorism since 2001, including the case involving three men from Toledo convicted last year of plotting to recruit and train terrorists.  Authorities also prosecuted three loosely-linked terrorists over four years, including Iyman Faris, also known as Mohammad Rauf and sometime F.B.I. double agent, was convicted of helping in a plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge at the request of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks.

Carter Stewart is following the lead of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who has instructed new U.S. Attorneys to return to basic areas of prosecution.  Stewart’s top priority is still counter-terrorism but he has not decided on this next most important emphasis. But he is taking a close look at financial crimes.  “With today’s economy and the issues that we’re facing, I think that’s a direct result from fraudulent activity,” he said.

The recent filing of charges against a substitute teacher at Duncan Schools has raised the issue of how schools check out their employees.  In this case, Erwin Johnson has been charged with two counts of lewd proposals to a child, more particularly sending lewd text messages to one of the 16-year-old students at the school.  The school district had run a background check on Johnson, but only within the state of Oklahoma.  The school discovered Johnson had been convicted of second degree theft in the state of Washington in 2008 before the school district hired him as a substitute teacher.

Most citizens would expect extensive inspection of anyone placed in the midst of children at school, whether a full-time teacher or substitute teacher or janitor, for that matter. Whoever has daily, unsupervised contact with children is being vouched for by the school and should have been carefully investigated by the school.  But as is so often the case, it is a failure to have done something, something everyone assumed already was being done, that makes the best lesson for correction.

Most districts pay $40 to $50 per day for non-certified substitutes to teach.  Substitute teachers cannot be employed more than 70 school days during a school year if they are non-certified, but substitutes with a bachelor’s degree or a lapsed or expired certificate can teach 100 school days per year.  Hiring requirements are set by each school district, and some small districts even allow high school graduates to substitute teach. Seventy school days is plenty of exposure to the students.

The Oklahoma Education Department requires all teachers in the state to pass a background check by fingerprint comparison with a national data base.  But non-certified substitutes and other personnel are not required to have background checks.

Individual school districts can make their own rules, and there are 532 school districts in Oklahoma.   Approximately 281 school districts requested background checks through the Oklahoma Education Department in the year 2008 and 291 districts in the year 2009. The Education Department files its requests with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation for the background searches.  Individual school districts can also obtain a background check through a private vendor.  But individual school districts may not do any background check.

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation processes fingerprint-based searches for the Education Department.  These take longer to obtain results and are more expensive.  Also the agency requesting the fingerprint-based search must have the statutory authority to seek them. Obviously, a fingerprint search is more thorough because it addresses a nationwide Federal Bureau of Investigation data base for fingerprint identification.  A name-only search searches only for the name given by the applicant and within the State of Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation charges $15.00 for a basic name search and $41.00 for a fingerprint search-based search that includes both state and national information.

The Oklahoma City Public Schools screens every employee applicant with a national name-based background check.   The check costs $28.00, which is deducted from the employee’s pay if they are hired.  The school district pays for volunteers and unsuccessful applicants.   The Ardmore Public Schools perform their own search for the background of applicants.  For a charge of $18.99, one of the administrative assistants does the checks on her computer based on name searches.  Common names and false names can obviously defeat this search. Both these searches are name-based, so their limits are obvious.

One way to address the costs of such searches is to discontinue the practice of the school district paying for unsuccessful candidates’ background checks.  The school could require any applicant, not the district, to pay for the background search as a prerequisite for application. This would likely require enactment of a statute, but the safety of the children is otherwise compromised by the schools’ use of inferior background checks, apparently influenced by the lower costs of the inferior name-based search.

As the economy continues to struggle in Oklahoma, revenues to the state come in at lower levels than last year.  The state must therefore cut expenditures.   All state agencies are now planning a five percent reduction in spending.   Some projects may do worse.

One of these is the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System. It pays for the defense of those accused of crimes who cannot afford their own lawyer.  The Indigent Defense System pays for attorneys and some investigators in separate departments, broken down into cases involving charges of capital crimes and non-capital crimes, and broken down for trials and for appeals for both capital and non-capital.

The capital division, for those charged with cases facing the death penalty, is adequately funded.  Funding for non-capital crimes is less sure.

Capital crimes are probably more certainly funded because any failure in representation in these cases will likely result in a reversal on appeal and the necessity to try cases all over again.   And capital cases are already costly for the state to prosecute due to the courts’ demands for detailed and careful proceedings when such an extreme penalty is at issue.

The Indigent Defense System says it needs $1million more in funding, and the legislature is looking everywhere in its budget for the money.  One pot of money the legislature is now considering shifting the Indigent Defense System is the funding the legislature gives to Legal Aid of Oklahoma.

The state is not required to fund Legal Aid, which provides legal services of a non-criminal nature to those who truly unable to afford legal services.  Legal Aid guidelines are strict and their income level required for someone to be represented is demandingly low. But Legal Aid does have other funding sources, and the legislature is not required to fund Legal Aid.  The legislature is required to fund Indigent Defense, required by the constitution, which could ultimately be enforced by the federal courts.

As criminal defense lawyers well know, attorneys appointed by the Indigent Defense System have a heavy workload.   There are always plenty of people charged with crimes who have no money to pay a lawyer.  But now that workload is increasing.

During the 2009 budget year which ended last June 30, the staff of criminal defense attorneys who work for the indigent defense office handled 39,369 cases.  Estimates are for an increase to approximately 44,100 cases by the end of the 2010 budget year.

The legislature may not get to use the money from Legal Aid for indigent defense, however.  The legislature and the governor agreed earlier this year on the funding levels for indigent defense and Legal Aid, and the governor’s office is sticking with that agreement.  For now, that means the legislature will have to look elsewhere for its $1,000,000 funding shortfall for indigent defense for next year.

Governor Brad Henry has indicated the Pardon and Parole Board may be able to examine old convictions, now pardoned, and determine which parolees are actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.  The governor says he is unable to make such a determination.

Such a finding is necessary for someone convicted of a crime to later have the records of his conviction expunged, or sealed up.   Oklahoma has been at the forefront of wrongful convictions, thanks to Joyce Gilchrist, the discredited forensic chemist who was employed by the Oklahoma City Police laboratory and testified in many criminal trials in Oklahoma County District Court.   Later examinations of the evidence by scientists and DNA evidence have proved innocent too many of the defendants Gilchrist helped convict.

The Oklahoma legislature is still working out the procedures for those wrongfully convicted.  One new wrinkle just this year is a provision that allows one to expunge the records of his conviction – if …

“4. The person has received a full pardon on the basis of a written finding by the Governor of actual innocence for the crime for which the claimant was sentenced.” Oklahoma Statutes, Title , Section 18 (Supp: 2009).

How is the Governor to determine “actual innocence” so he can make that written finding?  No one knows.  That is why he has passed the ball to the Pardon and Parole Board.  But this board does not know how they will do it, either.

Gene Weatherby was given a pardon by Governor Henry in 2007.  He cannot seal up the records of his conviction, however, until the Governor gives him a written finding of “actual innocence.”  So the Governor asked the Pardon and Parole Board to investigate and make such a finding, if appropriate.

The Pardon and Parole Board might better have been consulted about these new duties, according to Board Chairwoman Susan Loving.  “This is huge that we now have this responsibility,” she said. She said the Board might need to seek more money from the legislature for this, as staff members have been directed to develop a new procedure for such requests.

“The Pardon and Parole Board is not a jury,” Board executive director Terry Jenks said.  “We don’t hear witnesses and evaluate evidence.  We need to figure out some options about where we are going.”   As criminal defense lawyers know, however, the board does hear witnesses on a regular basis, although not in such a formal setting as in a courtroom with rules of procedure and evidence.

Weatherby was convicted in Oklahoma County in 1984 of fatally stabbing a woman.  Joyce Gilchrist testified mud and fibers on Weatherby’s shoes proved he had been in the woman’s home.   An FBI chemist later testified that Gilchrist’s findings were unsubstantiated, but there was other evidence presented to the jury that convicted Weatherby, including testimony from the stabbed woman herself.    So, it is not perfectly clear from the record whether Weatherby is innocent, and that is why Governor Henry wanted someone else to give it a closer look.

News stories report that Tiger Woods had a traffic accident backing out of his home in Florida, an estate in Isleworth, outside Orlando.   According to the Florida Highway Patrol accident report, Woods had just pulled out of his driveway when he struck a fire hydrant and then a tree, and Woods said he had cuts, bruising and “right now, I’m a little sore.”

A 911 caller reported an accident in the middle of the night.  “I have a neighbor, he hit the tree.  And we came out here just to see what was going on.  I see him and he’s laying down,” the neighbor reported without naming Tiger Woods.  When the caller was asked by the dispatcher if the “victim” was unconscious, the neighbor stated, “Yes.”  The 911 call goes on with the voice of a woman shouting, “What happened?”  “We’re just trying to get the police here right now, “ the caller says to the woman. “We don’t know what happened.  We’re figuring that out right now.  I’m on the phone with the police right now.”

The Florida Highway Patrol has been asking to interview Woods about the accident.  Woods has just published a statement on his website.  “The situation is my fault, and it’s obviously embarrassing to my family and me.  I’m human and I’m not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn’t happen.”

Woods’ statement went on: “Although I understand there is curiosity, the manly false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible.  The only person responsible for the acccident is me.  My wife, Elin, acted courageously when she saw I was hurt and in trouble she was the first person to help me.  Any other assertion is absolutely false.”  This was published about an hour after Woods’ attorney told the Highway Patrol that for the third straight day Woods would be unavailable to talk to troopers.  Woods said this was a private matter, and he intended to keep it that way.

The Highway Patrol went to Woods’ estate nevertheless. They were met there by Woods’ attorney, who gave then Woods’ driver’s license, registration and insurance as required for such accidents.  The Highway Patrol still does not know where Woods was headed at that time of night, how he lost control of his SUV at such a speed that the air bags did not deploy, and why both rear windows of this Cadillac Escalade were smashed out.  Perhaps the biggest question is if was just a careless mistake, why not speak to state troopers to complete their investigation?

A spokesman for the highway patrol was towed away from the gated community in which Woods lives “for safekeeping.”  Why would the police take Woods’ vehicle from its resting place, which was apparently feet from Woods’ garage?

Besides not wanting to make public what Woods said is a “private matter,” Woods has another reason not to speak to the police about his matter.  Every criminal defense lawyer knows why Woods was well advised to have his lawyer speak for him when the police arrived at his home for a “friendly chat.”  Anything Woods says can and will be used against him in a court of law.  So why should he help the police make a criminal case against him?

Such a case does not have to appear likely.  Certainly, no criminal case appears likely from the sparse facts known.  But who knows how creative the police may become?  Such things have happened before, and that is why Woods’ attorney, informed any interview was optional, exercised the option that excluded any interview.  Why take any other option, why give up one’s Fifth Amendment Rights, just so as to appear one is “not guilty?”

Rumors are circulating that Tiger Woods is seeing some cocktail waitress in New York, and that may be related somehow to this accident.  The waitress is now represented by a Hollywood attorney.  Regardless, if a police interview took place, whatever would be said, would be front page news in 12 hours.  That is another reason Tiger Woods could understandably not want to talk to the police about this accident.  But the first reason is the reason that applies to every citizen who has available Constitutional Rights.

William Jefferson, former Congressman from New Orleans, was sentenced to 13 years in federal prison for using his office to enrich himself and his family.  His sentence was less than the 27 years recommended by the U.S. Attorney.  He was convicted by a jury last August for bribery, racketeering and money laundering.  Some of his schemes involved business ventures in Africa.

Since Jefferson is 62 years old, his sentence could be a life sentence, since there is no parole in the federal prison system, although he could get 15 per cent of his sentence off for good behavior.

Jefferson was convicted after a six-week trial in Alexandria, Virginia. He was found guilty of 11 of 16 counts after he was indicted in June, 2007.  But his indictment followed highly publicized activity in the case.  Jefferson was videotaped by the FBI in July, 2005, receiving $100,000 of $100 bills in a briefcase in Arlington, Virginia.  Captured by a wire on one of the participants, Jefferson allegedly advised an informant to give Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar $500,000 to make sure their business interests obtained contracts for their companies in Nigeria.

A few days later the FBI raided Jefferson’s home in Washington, D.C. and claimed to have found $90,000 of the cash in the freezer in $10,000 increments, wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers.”  The FBI claimed the serial numbers found on the bills in Jefferson’s home matched serial numbers of the money the FBI had given to their informant.

It was nine months later that the really big raid took place.  FBI agents executed a search warrant on Jefferson’s office in the House of Representatives, the Rayburn House Office Building.  Jefferson was a sitting Congressman at the time, and the FBI raid is believed to be the first time a raid was ever conducted on the office of member of Congress.

The separation of powers implications raised great concerns.  Members of Congress feared the precedent of law enforcement officers raiding legislators’ offices.   If legislators’ offices could be raided whenever agents of the executive branch claimed they were on the trail of criminal evidence, the legislative branch of government could be at the mercy of the executive branch.  These are the kinds of raids Russia’s Premier Putin has conducted to crush the formerly free press and private businessmen who challenged Putin.  These are the kinds of raids governments around the world have used as a pretext to force legislators to follow the command of the executive.

Congressional leaders immediately demanded the FBI return documents seized from the raid of Congressman Jefferson’s House office.  House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke out together.  Reportedly Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller threatened to quit if the Justice Department had to return the documents.  Meanwhile, the House of Representatives was threatening to axe the Justice Department’s budget.  President Bush ultimately directed the Justice Department to seal all seized evidence for 45 days.

At the time, an ABC News poll in June, 2006 found 86% in the United States supported the FBI’s right to search congressional offices when they obtain a warrant.  This should be no surprise. The public’s support of law enforcement always outweighs support of Constitutional restraints.  At least the poll dealt with a search warrant.

As any criminal defense lawyer will tell you, members of the general public for the most part always will see the justification of unconstitutional actions in the results.  If the police acted without probable cause or a trumped up justification, the public does not often question the action.  There are significant exceptions, but for the most part, the safeguards of the Constitution are not appreciated by the general public when weighed against the value of “getting bad guys.”.

The public wants crimes solved, and the restraints on government placed by the Constitution are seen as speed bumps to be ignored only “a case at a time.”  The “case at a time,” of course, becomes the rule rather than the exception because in every case there is a “good reason” to go ahead with ignoring the restraints, to go ahead and get this guy because “this guy really needs getting” or “this crime really needs solving.”  The Constitution remains on the sidelines from little use until that member of the public or this person has an experience when they are surprised at how easy the rules have made it to convict someone innocent of a crime.

William Jefferson challenged the raid on his office to the District Court of the District of Columbia.  The Court held that the broad protections of the Speech or Debate Clause, which give absolute immunity from prosecution for legislative acts does not shield members of Congress from the execution of valid search warrants.  For those who fear executive overreach, it is noteworthy that search warrants would necessarily require approval from the judicial branch of government.  Oddly, Chief Hogan, who made this finding was the one who had approved the original search.

The decision of the District Court was appealed to a three-judge panel held that Department of Justice could not review Jefferson’s filed until Jefferson had seen what files had been taken from his office and which pertained to his legislative duties.

Thereafter the House of Representatives stripped Jefferson of his committee assignment in the House.  Jefferson was reelected in 2006, but after being indicted in 2007, he lost election in 2008, upset by a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.  Jefferson went to trial as an ex-Congressman.

An inmate in the Oklahoma County Jail has a good chance of dying.  In 2006, the Oklahoma County jail had a mortality rate higher per 100,000 inmates than Los Angeles County Jail, Cook County Illinois, among many others.  Three inmates have died there this year.  Fourteen inmates died in the jail in 2007 and 2008.

The U.S. Justice Department keeps track of the facilities with which it does business, including the business of housing federal inmates.  There is no federal jail in Oklahoma City, so the Justice Department contracted to place its inmates in the Oklahoma County Jail.  Until last year, that is, when a D.O.J.  report found so many serious deficiencies that the federal inmates were all moved out.  They were sent to the Grady County Jail, which was very happy to be paid the higher per-prisoner rate.

The D.O.J. report found high instances of violence between detainees, lax supervision of inmates, poor suicide prevention, and poor health care.  Any local criminal defense attorney can verify especially the latter: poor health care. Whenever one of my clients with a medical condition has to spend any time in the jail, either pretrial or post-trial, I cringe.  The greater the medical needs of an inmate, the less likely those needs will be met.  Send all the letters you want, communicate on a daily basis with the authorities as needed, it still may not be enough to get the attention of the medical personnel to get the right medication or treatment as needed.

The jail’s spin on all this?  “…[A] natural death is a part of life,” Mark Myers, spokesman of the Oklahoma County sheriff’s office said.  He said this year’s deaths have been from natural causes.  He said the “majority” of deaths from the previous two years have also been from natural causes.  He further said the jail calculates that .01 percent of the 44,000 inmates who come to the jail annually will die while in custody.  Many inmates are in poor health when they come to the jail, he correctly points out.  If it weren’t for the federal government’s study, such a statistical approach might make you think all those deaths were just statistical inevitable.  Are the inmates in Los Angeles or Chicago just that much healthier?

Jail administrator Major Jack Herron said a new company is overseeing the jail’s health care now, and about 10 additional staff and a full-time physician have been added in the last few months for inmate’s health.

My suggestion is that one check back in a year, and one will notice the same problems, and one will hear the same responses from the jail, something like, “we just added a new wing to really improve things, and we just gave most of the walls a nice new coat of pain, etc., etc.” This has been going on for years, so every time the latest study comes out, sudden improvements are announced just in time to respond to the latest criticisms.  Then things return to normal.

In May, 2007, Christopher Beckman died after a struggle with jail guards.  Two Oklahoma County jail guards, Mark Isch and Gavin Littlejohn, were indicted in February for that death.

The three who died this year did, indeed, die of natural causes.  The medical examiner made that determination, not the jail.

Marijuana stores are everywhere now in Los Angeles, flourishing under the new state law permitting medical use of marijuana.  They are found next to dry cleaners, restaurants and gas stations.  Advocates claim there are 800 of the stores.   Law enforcement claims the number over 1,000.  There are now more marijuana stores in Los Angeles than public schools, and everyone agrees the number is too high.  Los Angeles has more marijuana stores than any other.

These are medical marijuana dispensaries, and the police promise to crack down on the ones that make a profit.  The police are making noises about conducting raids, and some say this is an effort to influence the City Council to adopt stricter regulations.   It may be working.

The Council was pondering implementation of an ordinance that had been negotiated with medical marijuana supporters, but the city attorney, Carmen Trutanich, has persuaded the Council to adopt instead an his office has drawn up.  This proposed ordinance would provide for  dispensaries to have renewable permits, submit to criminal record checks, register the names of members with the police and operate on a nonprofit basis.  It would result in the closing of hundreds of the existing marijuana dispensaries.

The city attorney argued that state law permits the exchange of marijuana between growers and patients on a nonprofit and noncash basis only. Marijuana advocates say that interpretation would regulate dispensaries out of existence- against the will of voters who approved medical cannabis in 1996.

State laws that are increasingly allowing medicinal use. Thirteen states have laws supporting medical marijuana, and others are considering new legislation, yet federal laws that still treat marijuana as an illegal drug.  California is the testing ground, as police officials and marijuana advocates everywhere watch this experiment play out.

Criminal defense lawyers in California, accustomed to defending their clients from relatively clear  statutes prohibiting most of the cannabis family of plants, now have a lenient state law side-by-side with the standard prohibition of the federal law.  The medical use of marijuana is the only use permitted by this law, but California law is otherwise more lenient than many states.

Speaking at a training luncheon for regional narcotics officers, Los Angeles District Attorney said, “About 100 percent of dispensaries in Los Angeles County and the city are operating illegally… The time is right to deal with this problem.”  Mr. Cooley is up for re-election next year.   The training was titled “The Eradication of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County.   Cooley said state law does not allow dispensaries to be for-profit enterprises.

The Los Angeles city attorney, newly-elected Carmen Trutanich, claims dispensaries are prohibited from accepting cash even to reimburse growers for labor and supplies. He said that a recent California Supreme Court decision, People v. Mentch, banned all over-the-counter sales of marijuana.  Not surprisingly, other officials and marijuana advocates disagree with that interpretation.

Prosecutions of marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles so far have been limited to about twelve in the last year, Mr. Cooley’s spokeswoman said. But police are expecting to be called on soon to raid collectives.

As to the collectives, Don Duncan, a spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, a leader in the medical marijuana movement, said marijuana collectives do need more regulation and there need to be fewer of them. He also said dispensaries should be nonprofit organizations, but that over-the-counter cash purchases should be permitted.  “I am under no illusions that everyone out there is following the rules,” Duncan said.  He runs his own dispensary in West Hollywood. “But just because you accept money to reimburse collectives does not mean you’re making profits.”

More than 300,000 doctors’ referrals for medical cannabis are on file, most of them from Los Angeles, according to Americans for Safe Access. The movement has had a string of successes in the Legislature and at the ballot box.  About 40 cities and counties have medical marijuana ordinances.

But last June, a federal judge sentenced Charles  Lynch, a dispensary owner north of Santa Barbara, to one year in prison for selling marijuana to a 17-year-old boy whose father had testified that they sought out medical marijuana for his son’s chronic pain. The mayor and the chief of police testified on behalf of Mr. Lynch, who was released on bail pending appeal.

And last month, San Diego police officers and sheriff’s deputies, along with agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration, raided 14 marijuana dispensaries and arrested 31 people. In an interview, Bonnie Dumanis, the district attorney for San Diego County, said that state laws governing medical marijuana were unclear and that the city had not yet instituted new regulations.  Ms. Dumanis said that she approved of medical marijuana clubs where patients grow and use their own marijuana, but that none of the 60 or so dispensaries in the county operated that way.  Marijuana supporters worry that San Diego may provide be the future for Los Angeles if raids there become a reality.

But many look to Harborside Health Center in Oakland as a model for how dispensaries could work.  “Our No. 1 task is to show that we are worthy of the public’s trust in asking to distribute medical cannabis in a safe and secure manner,” said Steve DeAngelo, the proprietor of Harborside, which has been in business for three years.

Harborside is one of four licensed dispensaries in Oakland run as nonprofit organizations. It is the largest, with 74 employees and revenues of about $20 million. Last summer, the Oakland City Council passed an ordinance to collect taxes from the sale of marijuana, a measure that Mr. DeAngelo supported.  Mr. DeAngelo designed Harborside to exude legitimacy, security and comfort. Visitors to the low-slung building are greeted by security guards who check the required physicians’ recommendations. Inside, the dispensary looks like a bank, except that the floor is covered with hemp carpeting and the eight tellers stand behind identical displays of marijuana and hashish.

There is a laboratory where technicians determine the potency of the marijuana and label it accordingly. (Harborside says it rejects 80 percent of the marijuana that arrives at its door for insufficient quality.) There is even a bank vault where the day’s cash is stored along with reserves of premium cannabis. An armored truck picks up deposits every evening.

City officials routinely audit the dispensary’s books, and “surplus” cash (no profits here) is rolled back into the center to pay for free counseling sessions and yoga for patients. “Oakland issued licenses and regulations, and Los Angeles did nothing and they are still unregulated,” Mr. DeAngelo said. “Cannabis is being distributed by inappropriate people.”

But even Oakland’s regulations fall short of city attorney Trutanich’s proposal that Los Angeles ban all cash sales.  Christine Gasparac, a spokeswoman for State Attorney General Jerry Brown, said that after Trutanich’s comments in Los Angeles, law enforcement officials and advocates from around the state had called seeking clarity on medical marijuana laws.

Jerry Brown has issued legal guidelines that allow for nonprofit sales of medical marijuana, she said. But, she added, with laws being interpreted differently, “the final answer will eventually come from the courts.”