Medical cannabis trial concludes with closing arguments
Photo courtesy of Kenneth Ferriera, Lincoln Journal Star
Closing arguments were heard Monday in a civil lawsuit that will determine the legality of two ballot initiatives to legalize medical marijuana.
Steven E. Guenzel, the attorney representing plaintiff John Kuehn, argued that because some of the petition pages notarized or circulated by specific members were seen as invalid, that all of their petition pages were invalid, quoting the 1919 Nebraska Supreme Court Case, Barkley vs. Pool.
Deputy Solicitor General Zach Viglianco argued that there was “a tsunami of evidence” proving that there was intentional wrongdoing on the part of the Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana campaign.
They brought up an instance in which a text between petition circulator Jennifer Henning and petition sponsor Cristi Eggers discussed picking up petition pages from a business in Seward. The plaintiff saw this text as an example of Eggers explicitly telling Henning to follow improper protocol.
Viglianco then argued because of the examples they presented, that there must be more examples that they have not found.
Defense attorney Daniel Gutman argued that the plaintiff has not provided enough evidence of direct fraud or malfeasance, that would in turn invalidate enough signatures to make the two initiatives being on the ballot illegal. He said that the text messages were being taken out context.
Gutman said if the judge were to take the example of direct fraud, those done by circulator Michael Egbert, that the initiatives would still have enough signatures. He took it one step further, and said that if you invalidated all of the signatures done by Jennifer Henning as well, that there would still be enough signatures.
Gutman said it was “an absolute travesty” to end a citizen led initiative based on the mistakes and wrongdoings of two people.
Earlier in the trial the final witness and leader of the petition campaign, Cristi Eggers, took the stand. She invoked her right not to incriminate herself and pled the fifth to most of Assistant Attorney General Justin Halls’ questions.
Attorneys opposing putting the initiative on the ballot presented texts seen as evidence of misconduct. The state alleged leaders of the campaign and petition circulators were aware signatures had been gathered and notarized improperly.
One such text was between petition circulator Marcie Reed that said:
“Even a little zip code added will toss it. We can’t add anything for people anymore. We anticipate they will scan and analyze them all.”
Attorneys for the petition drive objected to using texts like this as evidence, arguing they were irrelevant and taken out of context.
The case is now in the hands of Lancaster County District Judge Susan Strong. She will decide whether the two medical cannabis initiatives are legally on the ballot.
