|
|
| Immunity, Jury Key Elements in Pot Case Appeal |
|
Posted by CN Staff on September 14, 2005 at 06:59:33 PT By Josh Richman, Staff Writer Source: Daily Review 
San Francisco -- Two men walked out of Ed Rosenthal's appeal hearing Tuesday and immediately lit up a marijuana pipe, underscoring the conflict the renowned pot advocate still crusades to resolve. "I want to change these laws and the enforcement of these laws, that's what this is all about," said Rosenthal, 60, after Tuesday's hourlong hearing before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. "I was an officer of the city of Oakland, I was told by the city attorney's office that I was immune from prosecution," he told reporters. "If you can't rely on government officials, who can you rely on?" Famed for his marijuana cultivation books and the "Ask Ed" column he used to write for High Times magazine, Rosenthal was convicted of three marijuana-growing felonies in 2003, more than a year after federal agents raided sites including his Oakland house, an Oakland warehouse in which he was growing marijuana and a San Francisco medical marijuana club he was supplying. Attorney Dennis Riordan told circuit judges Tuesday that the self-styled "guru of ganja" was denied due process when U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer refused him immunity from prosecution under a statute protecting duly appointed state and local government "officers," and again when Breyer would not let him present his good-faith belief in his immunity as an affirmative defense — that is, "I did it, but here's why" — at trial. Riordan argued Breyer even took note of Rosenthal's honest, credible and reasonable belief in his immunity as a mitigating factor at sentencing. Breyer sentenced Rosenthal to one day behind bars, time already served. If it was applicable at sentencing, Riordan argued, it should have been viable as an "entrapment-by-estoppel" defense. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon questioned Riordan about what the phrase "lawfully engaged" means in the context of the immunity statute. But Riordan argued that it must protect state and local officials from federal law; if federal law was not being violated, there would be no need for an immunity statute at all. Assistant U.S. Attorney Amber Rosen argued the immunity statute is meant to apply to law enforcement officers who deal with illegal drugs, not people who are "deputized" by local governments to implement laws that directly conflict with federal law. And only a federal official, not a state or local official, could have invested Rosenthal with a good-faith belief that he was immunized from federal law, she said. Joseph Elford, another of Rosenthal's attorneys, argued Rosenthal also deserves a new trial because of juror misconduct. During deliberations, a juror troubled by the idea of convicting Rosenthal consulted a friend — who happened to be an attorney — and was advised that she could "get in trouble" for deviating from the judge's instructions. She shared that advice with another juror. Raising the specter of punishment for a juror is a kind of coercion, Elford said. Berzon questioned whether there is any prejudice involved in "coercing" a juror to do what the law requires; Elford replied that it foreclosed the juror from exercising her power to "nullify," or ignore the judge's instructions and vote her conscience. But Rosen argued the advice given to the juror in no way compromised Rosenthal's right to a fair trial on the evidence and the law, and so is not grounds for reversal. Berzon and Senior Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher questioned Rosen on the government's argument that Breyer was unreasonable in sentencing Rosenthal to just one day in prison when federal sentencing guidelines called for at least several years behind bars. Rosen acknowledged the guidelines no longer are mandatory, and the circuit judges seemed reluctant to second-guess Breyer's judgment. The attorneys also argued about whether prosecutor George Bevan committed misconduct when discussing the investigation's aims with grand jurors who eventually indicted Rosenthal. Rosenthal's attorneys claim Bevan lied about not targeting medical marijuana clubs. Note: Attorney argues for new trial for 'guru of ganja'. Source: Daily Review, The (CA) Related Articles & Web Site: Ed Rosenthal's Trial Pictures & Articles 9th Circuit Mulls Pot-Smoking Celeb's Appeal Pot Guru Challenges Drug Convictions 'Ganja Guru' Appeal Set After Delay Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #10 posted by mayan on September 14, 2005 at 18:21:52 PT |
| But Rosen argued the advice given to the juror in no way compromised Rosenthal's right to a fair trial on the evidence and the law, and so is not grounds for reversal. If the juror was told that nullification was not an option then just how fair was the trial? Nullification could have let Ed off the hook so it IS grounds for reversal! The evidence and the law? Ed couldn't even mention that he was growing for medical cannabis patients! THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN... Citizens' Watchdog Group Challenges 9/11 Commissioners to Debate; Says 9/11 Report "Worst Cover-up in History": http://911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=662&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 George Galloway MP: Elements Within Government Using Terror Provocation Tactics: http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/130905Galloway.htm 9/11,IRAQ,KATRINA. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2005/09/911_iraq_katrin.php [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by FoM on September 14, 2005 at 15:00:37 PT |
| Poll: 4-1 Support for Medical Marijuana in Wisconsin September 14, 2005 MADISON, WISCONSIN -- A statewide poll released today shows that Wisconsin residents support medical marijuana legislation by a margin of greater than four to one. Support was strong in all age groups and all political affiliations. Statewide, 75.7% said they would support legislation to permit patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, or other serious illnesses to use marijuana for medical purposes with their physicians' approval, with 18.2% opposed and 6.2% either unsure or declining to answer. Republicans supported the proposal by a margin of 68% to 24.4%, while among Democrats the margin was 83.9% to 10.9%. Support for the proposal topped 70% in all age groups. The telephone survey of 600 randomly selected Wisconsin residents was conducted from July 11 to July 22, 2005, by Chamberlain Research Consultants as part of Chamberlain's quarterly Wisconsin Trends poll. Polling on the medical marijuana question was commissioned and paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). The survey's margin of error is plus or minus 3.97%. Detailed poll results appear below. "We are heartened by such overwhelming, bipartisan support for legislation to protect medical marijuana patients from arrest," said MPP Legislative Analyst Adam Horowitz. "Young or old, Republican or Democrat, Wisconsin residents believe seriously ill patients should not have to live in fear. We are hopeful that legislators will listen to their constituents and give Wisconsin patients the protection they deserve." Rep. Gregg Underheim (R-Oshkosh), who is presently drafting medical marijuana legislation to be introduced during the current session, said, "The public clearly understands the difference between the medical use of marijuana and the recreational use of marijuana, and the public clearly supports the medical use of marijuana." Underheim is chair of the Assembly's Committee on Health and vice chair of the Committee on Public Health. With more than 17,000 members and 120,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP works to minimize the harm associated with marijuana—both the consumption of marijuana and the laws that are intended to prohibit such use. MPP believes that the greatest harm associated with marijuana is imprisonment. For more information, please visit: http://www.MarijuanaPolicy.org POLL RESULTS (in percentages): QUESTION: Under Wisconsin law, the use of marijuana is illegal, including for medical purposes. Currently in the Wisconsin legislature, there is a bill pending that would allow people with cancer, multiple sclerosis, or other serious illnesses to use marijuana for medical purposes, as long as their physician approves. Do you support or oppose this bill? OVERALL SAMPLE: Support: 75.7 Oppose: 18.2 Don't know/refused to answer: 6.2 RESULTS BY PARTY: Republican Support: 68.0 Oppose: 24.4 Don't know/refused: 6.4 Democrat Support: 83.9 Oppose: 10.9 Don't know/refused: 5.2 Other Support: 61.1 Oppose: 22.2 Don't know/refused: 16.7 RESULTS BY AGE: 18-24 Support: 75.4 Oppose: 17.5 Don't know/refused: 7.0 25-34 Support: 73.4 Oppose: 20.3 Don't know/refused: 6.4 35-44 Support: 82.2 Oppose: 11.9 Don't know/refused: 5.9 45-54 Support: 71.7 Oppose: 22.8 Don't know/refused: 5.5 55-64 Support: 83.5 Oppose: 11.8 Don't know/refused: 4.7 65+ Support: 70.2 Oppose: 21.8 Don't know/refused: 8.1 http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr20050914.html [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #8 posted by christen-mitchell on September 14, 2005 at 13:57:28 PT:
|
| Reminds me of Dennis Peron's Big Top Marijuana Market trial in 77'. The scene was the third floor of the San Francisco Court House. Outside of the courtroom 10 minutes before procedings I sparked a unit of Columbian that I'd picked up at the Big Top the night before. Nothing happened that day, just an eerie stillness and odor that permeated the air. The next day there were uniforms posted every 50 feet in the courthouse. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by FoM on September 14, 2005 at 11:51:04 PT |
|
Barbara MacKenzie struggles to carry on the legacy of her partner, medical-marijuana activist Steve McWilliams By Kelly Davis Chronic pain at the base of Barbara MacKenzie’s spine, the consequence of degenerative disc disease, makes sitting upright uncomfortable. On a Friday morning in early August, she was on the floor, propped up by her elbows on the beige carpet in the front room of her Normal Heights bungalow. As MacKenzie talked, she ran her hand along the carpet’s surface, lifting up a light layer of dog hair. Sativa, a chubby golden retriever, waddled over and settled down near MacKenzie; Sensimilla, a mix of husky and German shepherd, almost too large for the small room, opted for some shade in the garden outside. A couple of weeks later, both dogs—“the puppies,” MacKenzie calls them—moved in with a friend of hers in Alpine, where they have plenty of outdoor space and the human companionship they crave. MacKenzie, on her own, doesn’t have the time to give them the attention they’re used to; there’s too much she has to accomplish and too little time. Complete Article: http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=3580 [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on September 14, 2005 at 10:38:35 PT |
| Berzon and Senior Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher questioned Rosen on the government's argument that Breyer was unreasonable in sentencing Rosenthal to just one day in prison when federal sentencing guidelines called for at least several years behind bars. Rosen acknowledged the guidelines no longer are mandatory, and the circuit judges seemed reluctant to second-guess Breyer's judgment.
********************************************************** I guess judges have some of their power back now. I was wondering how that decision would play on the ground. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on September 14, 2005 at 10:24:31 PT |
| That's Yiddish for a really strong at heart man.
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Truth on September 14, 2005 at 09:35:45 PT |
| Best of luck! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by Hope on September 14, 2005 at 09:17:52 PT |
| May Ed be the victor...and when he is... truth, justice, mercy, and we all will be, too. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by Richard Zuckerman on September 14, 2005 at 09:01:27 PT:
|
| I hope the best for Ed Rosenthal! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by FoM on September 14, 2005 at 07:01:54 PT |
| Lawyers Ask That Medical Pot Case Be Overturned Judge misled cannabis grower's jury, they say. Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Attorneys for Oakland pot advocate Ed Rosenthal asked a panel of federal judges Tuesday to overturn his 2003 conviction for growing medical marijuana, while the prosecutors sought to have his one-day prison sentence thrown out because they thought it wasn't long enough. Snipped: Complete Article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/14/BAG7SEN2QE1.DTL [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |