The highly anticipated DEA hearing begins as the cheerful judge speaks to attendees

The formal hearing process on the proposed cannabis rescheduling began Dec. 2 at DEA headquarters. This preliminary hearing was simply a day of proceedings for Judge Mulrooney to address legal and logistical issues and discuss future evidentiary hearing dates in the matter. No witness statements were offered or accepted at this hearing.

“Remember, this is not a trial about whether marijuana is good or bad – because I don’t know whether it is good or bad,” said DEA Administrative Judge John Mulrooney. “My issues are much narrower and have to do with addiction and several other little boxes that I have.”

The judge kept the day entertained by joking about his beauty and even quoting from the film Mean Girls as he asked each accepted participant about their upcoming appointments. The judge’s job is to coordinate the trial, and today the main focus was whether witnesses and lawyers have conflicts with an expected February date for the main trial. Each participant had the opportunity to ask the judge questions about the process.

Some lawyers took this opportunity to express disappointment that the government had not presented its evidence before the preliminary hearing. With that, the judge specifically asked the government if it would have this evidence available by the “homework deadline,” and the lawyers said they would. They also asked if they could cross-examine the government, which the judge emphatically denied. He said specified procedures were not followed. The only cross-examinations that can take place are between the parties involved – not between the government.

The topic of ex parte was raised, with some of the pro-cannabis participants expressing concern about the alleged DEA conversations with anti-cannabis participants. However, Judge Mulrooney noted that he had addressed these issues in his order. He appeared to reject anything nefarious in the alleged conversations and felt it had no bearing on the hearings.

There were also concerns from pro-cannabis participants that the government would not be completely clear about whether or not it would fight for the postponement. While the judge specifically asked the government whether it supported the rule, the lawyer confirmed it did, but the answer appeared to be curt and vague. The judge also brought up the 42,000 comments and although he said each one was a voice that should be heard, he would never have time to hear them all and asked that they be summarized.

Judge Mulrooney also made it clear that an expert must really be an expert. For example, he asked whether a pharmacist was an expert in drug addiction. He also implicitly stated that the entire hearing would be placed on the record when asked whether there would be separate secret discussions.

At several points he praised the lawyers for their submissions and admonished some for not providing what he had requested. He brought up one person’s suggestion of reading her book and said he was not reading anyone’s books or detailed evidence because he wanted the trial to move quickly. He said he understood the participants’ desire to include as much as possible in the argument, but that he would never have time to read through everything.

Judge Multooney said: “I have no opinion on marijuana. Tons of people think it’s good and tons of people think it’s bad. Everyone has to get used to the idea that you could be wrong, no matter how strong your beliefs are – I get used to it every day, I have someone checking what I do. Like anyone else, any of us could be wrong.”