Reynolds’ (PRN) Comments on Hurwitz Conviction
Siobhan Reynolds, President of the PRN, Comments on Re-Conviction of Dr. Hurwitz for Trafficking; S. Reynolds; Comment in response to John Tierney’s Hurwitz Convicted on 16 Counts…, 2007-04-27.
Each time [a war on docs prosecution comes to trial] the lawyers believe that they will be the ones to try the case correctly [within the context of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)], and so do not make the Constitutional challenges that need to be made.
The (CSA) reverses the [usual] presumptions [of innocence] and in essence induces physicians to prescribe drugs that are only nominally legal. After they have done the deed, the Department of Justice gets to come in, with all the force and resources the federal government can bring to bear, and redefine the conduct.
We are not supposed to have to suffer under ex post facto law. Moreover, the expert in the case is setting the legal standard by which the doctor is either found guilty or not.
[The State] cannot set legal standards ad hoc, on the fly. Legal standards have to be fixed and understandable or else the defendant does not have notice of what faces him and is victim of tyrrany.
Also, under the CSA practitioners are guilty of drug trafficking unless they manage to show otherwise. And show it to the satisfaction of lay jurors, people who are not their peers.
Presumably the framers used the peers language for some vital reason.
I will be very curious to see what the jury members say about why they convicted someone they believe to be a compassionate doctor.Their logic will be very important to bring us all to a better understanding of what went wrong here and what goes wrong everywhere.
Then we will understand the seemingly logical imperatives that have been created by this unlawful instrument we call the CSA.
– Siobhan Reynolds; Pain Relief Network
[END]
Tags: Author=Reynolds, csa, drug policy, legitimate practice, prosecution, public health, statistics
Comment by
Bill
“…Moreover, the expert in the case is setting the legal standard by which the doctor is either found guilty or not.”
I would go a step further and say that the “expert” is being paid to ESTABLISH and element of the crime at the time of trial. I didn’t think that was a purpose of expert testimony. Is expert testimony used this way in any other criminal trial?