Posted on 11/05/2003 2:31:03 PM PST by MrLeRoy
Senator Richard J. Durbin (D., Ill.) is 58 years old and a graduate of Georgetown Law School. He has been in federal elected office for more than 20 years. His official duties include appointments on his chamber's Judiciary Committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as about a dozen subcommittees. His demeanor is serious, sober and focused.
So why does Durbin want juries to ignore federal law?
Durbin is currently seeking cosponsors for a bill that allows federal juries to be informed when defendants facing medical marijuana charges were in fact complying with state medical-marijuana laws. A similar measure is pending in the House (introduced by Sam Farr, D., Calif.). Federal prosecutors say if these bills pass and juries learn that marijuana involved in a case is for medical use, they will commit "jury nullification of the law" — acquitting plainly guilty criminals.
Durbin's measure may be a reaction to the conviction of Edward Rosenthal, who grew marijuana in California for distribution to medical dispensaries. His actions were legal under California Proposition 215, and he was deputized by the city of Oakland to provide his product to dispensaries there. Rosenthal's growing operations were inspected, licensed, and approved by all branches of California government.
It took a pool of 80 potential federal jurors to find 12 willing to convict Rosenthal. During jury selection, most of those summoned said they could not brand someone a felon for growing medical marijuana. Even after eliminating those who would not convict in a medical case, Judge Charles Breyer prevented any mention of medical use from reaching the jury during the trial. The jury heard nothing about why Rosenthal was growing marijuana. He was disingenuously portrayed by prosecutors as a common drug dealer, not as a conscientious caregiver.
Most legal commentators agree Judge Breyer made the technically correct call. Under traditional notions of relevance, if a fact does not make an element of the crime (i.e., growing marijuana) more or less likely, it is irrelevant. How that marijuana is to be used is not a "legal" factor. Under this theory, any evidence that serves no other purpose than to undermine the moral underpinnings of the law is inadmissible.
Following the conviction, nine jurors did something that, in most cases, would be unthinkable: They publicly expressed remorse for and denounced their own verdict. Jury foreman Charles Sackett apologized to Rosenthal and expressed shock and outrage after learning the jury had been prevented from hearing Rosenthal's story. Several jurors held a press conference, complaining that they had been misled, manipulated, and bullied into convicting. The conscience of the community had been stifled.
Sackett has said the jury probably would have nullified the law and acquitted, had they known they were considering a medical-marijuana case. "I think jury nullification is going to be part of the answer regarding states' rights in future cases," he said. However, for juries to come to a conscientious judgment, they must hear the whole case. Preventing the jury from knowing that this was a medical-marijuana case slandered Ed Rosenthal, misled the jury, and led to the unsavory conviction of a man who, instead of dealing poison on the street and destroying his community, was in fact administering to AIDS, MS, cancer, and glaucoma patients.
Not all federal judges accept Breyer's constrained view of relevance. Senior Federal District Judge Jack Weinstein has noted that "courts cannot and should not try to prevent, by restricting evidence unduly or by leaning on jurors, a certain degree of freedom of the jurors to come in with verdicts which may not reflect, in an abstract way, what the facts and the law are." Federal Judge Kenneth Hoyt has written that, as "part of the deliberative process is to determine the moral 'rightness' of the result reached," "the justice system must be flexible enough to permit acts of mercy by a jury where the facts dictate morally and ethically that mercy is appropriate."
Senator Durbin's bill is in line with the history and purpose of the American criminal jury system, which has been likened to the "fourth branch of government" and the "final check and balance." His measure would allow jurors to know whether the verdict they are asked to return would be a just one. If not, jurors could refuse to convict — nullify the law — on their own initiative. Durbin's bill will merely allow the jury system — the conscience of the community — to dispense, as Judge Hoyt so well put, "acts of mercy ... where the facts dictate morally and ethically that mercy is appropriate."
They're being tried in federal court, dickie-boy! They're in violation of federal law, dickie-boy! I suggest, dickie-boy, that you acquaint yourself with Article VI of the United States Constitution, which you've sworn to uphold, which states that "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby ..."
Dick Durbin, Sam Farr, and every co-sponsor of this bill should be tried for treason. It is a deliberate subversion of the U.S. Constitution.
Should President Bush be tried for treason if he signs the Assault Weapons Ban, or are you just being dramatic?
An acknowledged expert in growing hemp, deputized by the city of Oakland, and approved by the state to grow and distribute marijuana.
Yet this fact doesn't mean Ed Rosenthal might be more likely to grow hemp?
(slowly shaking head ...)
They're talking about federal trials. Little Dickie want to introduce into federal court the fact that medical marijuana is "legal" in that particular state where the federal trial is being held.
His hope, with this legislation, is that the juries will then ignore federal law and acquit the guily party.
What is interesting, as ellery points out, is that this legislation is directed at medical marijuana cases only.
Why aren't you joining ellery in questioning this selective legislation?
Lawyers, a question if you please: I realize that words have different meanings in a legal sense than they do in everyday usage, but how can the reason why someone's doing something always be irrelevant to the action of doing it? It makes more sense when you consider a guy sticking up a grocery store to pay for Jenny Lee's new braces, but is it always such a hard-and-fast rule?
I ask you, how does one become an "expert" in an illegal activity? And this was before he was hired by the City of Oakland.
"deputized by the city of Oakland"
Rosenthal was deputized as a City of Oakland official, that's all. This means he was a city official, not some sheriff's deputy. I know you didn't say that he was, but I just wanted to clarify his standing.
and approved by the state to grow and distribute marijuana.
So what? He knew, the City of Oakland knew, the State of California knew it was against federal law. He violated federal law and was convicted in federal court of doing so by a jury of his peers. The fact that this was legal under state law does not make it more or less likely for him to violate federal law -- two different things.
What if the State of California allowed Rosenthal to keep slaves? Would that fact be relevent in a federal trial concerning a violation of the 13th amendment?
Medical marijuana is a scam. It is being used as a stepping-stone for the total legalization of marijuana, and advocates have said just that.
Marijuana is a Schedule I drug, which means, "The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."
Smoking marijuana for medical use is not endorsed by any medical organization for any illness, be it pain, MS, AIDS, cancer, nausea, glaucoma, whatever.
Does it provide "relief"? I'm sure it does. So does heroin. But there are other drugs that do it better with less side affects.
This is similar to a defendant's criminal history -- his past record is not relevent when determining guilt, but is relevent during sentencing (ie, the three strikes law).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.