case was being tried in the media, and that the comments could reach the jurors, who were bound by their oath to decide the case based only on the evidence presented at trial. He remarked to the defense that they probably wouldn't appreciate the prosecutor making statements to the media about why the defendant should be found guilty. Within a few days, approximately 30,000 people had signed a petition to stop the prosecution, and NPR showed that 95% of 15,000 people polled believed the charges were not justified. Final ruling After the jury deliberated for two hours, Olson was found not guilty of all 13 charges. The lead prosecutor, Paige Hazard, blamed Olson for turning down the plea offers and wasting taxpayer resources. An official statement from the City Attorney's Office criticized Olson for forcing the city to take the case to trial. Medical marijuana dispensary owner case Prohibition on mentioning state laws In 2010, Judge Shore ruled that a dispensary operator named Jovan Jackson was prohibited from using California's state medical marijuana law as part of his defense in a case for three charges of possession and sale of cannabis. Shore was required to interpret the meaning of the language in MMPA (Medical Marijuana Program Act (California Health and Safety Code 11362.7 et. seq.) that allowed a defense for patients "who associate for the purpose of collectively cultivating medical marijuana." Judge Shore conducted a pre-trial hearing, and heard testimony that the collective to which Jackson belonged had 1674 members, only a few of whom were involved in cultivation. Shore held that the association was not formed for the purpose of cultivation, but for distribution. Jackson was convicted of a felony, and Judge Shore ordered him to pay a $5,000 fine, serve 6 months in jail, and serve 3 years of probation. In October 2012, the Court of Appeal reviewed Judge Shore's decision not to allow the collective cultivation defense, and Jackson's felony conviction was reversed. People v. Jackson (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 525. The Court did not expressly disagree with Judge Shore's analysis, but held that, because there was no established definition of the language Judge Shore was called upon to interpret, the issue should have gone to the jury. Jackson was retried before another judge, and was allowed to use the defense, but was nonetheless convicted of all charges by the jury. References 21st-century American judges Superior court judges