Print subscriber but without online access? Activate your Digital Account now.
Roger Christie is accused of running a marijuana distribution business through his church in Hilo. His THC Ministry has long claimed marijuana as a religious sacrament and the use of it protected under the right to freedom of religion.
The federal prosecution argues that the THC Ministry is a front for illegal marijuana distribution. In its motion to deny bail, it presented evidence it says supports this allegation. However, this should not be relevant to a bail hearing. Whether the defendant has committed a crime or not is a decision to be made by a jury in a public trial, not by a judge in a bail hearing. Since July 2010, Christie has been denied bail and remains behind bars awaiting trial.
The prosecution argued that Christie is a danger to the community and should not be released on bail. The court accepted this argument. Marijuana was found in a March 2010 search and again in June 2010, leading the court to conclude that Christie would continue to violate the law while out on bail. As quoted in the Star-Advertiser on Feb. 24, Judge Alan Kay remarked: "You would think the light would come on when the first search of his residence was made."
The problem with this "danger to the community" argument is that it is completely circular — i.e.: The defendant is a danger because he might break the law; that is a danger because it is illegal. No evidence was presented that the illegal activities are dangerous at all even if Christie was to commit them. Hawaii County demonstrated its feelings when voters there, in 2008, asked police to make marijuana offenses its lowest priority.
As for finding marijuana a second time in three months, that supports what the defense has maintained all along: that the activities of the church are constitutionally protected. The court’s refusal to understand the defense’s case and the unjudicial remarks attributed to Judge Kay point to bias. It seems Christie is being detained as a punishment for his activities without the benefit of trial.
The court went so far as to put the onus on the defense to come up with a plan that would prevent the possibility that the defendant would commit new crimes while on bail. That burden belongs to the prosecution, not the defense, which has been put in the impossible situation of attempting to prove a negative.
Evidence that the prosecution has a political agenda comes from its legal motions. When referring to the 2008 county vote, it remarks: "While arguably Christie’s support and advocacy of the marijuana ordinance was an exercise of freedom of speech, this observation was not accurate, because as indicated during the Title III investigation, Christie’s hidden agenda in supporting the ordinance was to enhance his marijuana sources of supply." Apparently prosecutors believe the right to free speech does not apply to advocating for changes in law that might benefit you or annoy the government.
In their zeal to destroy a man, who has been a political opponent of the war on marijuana, the prosecution and courts have lost sight of the fundamental principles of American justice. Our rules exist not to protect dangerous criminals, but to protect harmless people from politically motivated prosecution. There are too many countries in the world where people have more to fear from the police than the criminals. It should be clear that it is not Roger Christie who is the danger in this case.
74