[dread78645]

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.

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 ...)

[robertpaulsen]

"An acknowledged expert in growing hemp"

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?