Motions in limine have been granted in medical marijuana cases to exclude: (a) Reference to political debate in California about legalization of marijuana. (b) Whether marijuana use has medical benefits; (c) Whether marijuana should continue to be a Schedule I Controlled Substance under federal law. (d) Whether the federal government should be regulating an area in which local California citizens voted to ignore the federal law. (e) The "good faith belief" of any defendant in the use of medicinal marijuana, its purposes, and effects.
In a criminal prosecution involving marijuana, defendants were charged with violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 841. The government filed motions in limine and supplemental motions in limine. The district court grated the motions.
In a criminal prosecution involving marijuana, should the government’s motions in limine, asking the court to prevent certain evidence about marijuana from being presented, be granted?
Defendants were ordered not to introduce any evidence, questioning, or testimony, either expert or lay opinion testimony, or to argue in the presence of the jury, to suggest: (1) marijuana had any legitimate medical value; (2) that it was lawful to sell medical marijuana; (3) defendants' "good faith" belief that marijuana was of medical value; (4) any defense of medical necessity applied; or (5) marijuana was not or should not have been a Schedule I controlled substance.