The appellants argued that the federal Parliament lacked the authority to criminalise marihuana possession. The appellants appealed against this decision. In 1954, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the appellants to be constitutional. Erin E. Murphy, counsel at Bancroft PLLC, argued for the appellants. We agree with the trial court's parting observation that the appellants 'still have a remedy. Hill launched a lawsuit for libel damages against the appellants. He concurred with the majority that the case was not ripe regarding the other appellants. On 7 March 1995, the appellants withdrew their High Court application. In this case, the evidence against appellants was overwhelming. Two of the Appellants had been convicted of committing grievous bodily harm with intent. Louis J. Caruso, Lansing, Michigan, argued on the side of the appellants (Austin). However, as the appellants were not Singapore citizens, they could not rely on this provision. As of January 2017 a total of 60 appellants have had their convictions quashed. All three appellants were convicted of honest services fraud in 2006 or 2007. There had not been prior arrangement for the sale of marijuana between McLoren and appellants.