How have the courts used the verdict of the Superior Court of Justice in a marijuana possession case?

Finally, even if the undersigned were wrong in every aspect of the above discussion, and a due process violation existed in this habeas case, the use of the verdict in this case was inconsequential. As the hearing officer's decision shows, Petition at 29-32 (electronic pagination), the officer exhaustively detailed the evidence in his possession before even mentioning the court verdict, which was referenced more or less as an add-on. In finding petitioner guilty, although the hearing officer equated the court found "possession" charge with the "distribution" charge, the hearing officer found the potential for controlled substance distribution based primarily on the amount of marijuana and the separate (distributable) packaging of the marijuana. Petition at 33 (electronic pagination). Reference to the court verdict by the hearing officer cannot be said to have had any substantial and injurious effect on the outcome here - i.e., the decision of distribution would have been made without the court verdict. And such injurious effect is necessary to find before petitioner can prevail. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710 (1993).

Page 8