Pot Case Jurors Call For New Trial

Sacramento Bee ^ | Feb. 5, 2003 | Claire Cooper

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...The courts (including the Supreme Court) shamelessly and repeatedly violate the Constitution. Tell me something I don't already know.

They ruled that the Constitution does not specify how congress shall declare war, and that "Authorizing War" by a joint resolution fills the legal requirement.

Big deal indead. Who's interpretation will they go by? Theirs or yours?

[general_re]

The state law was that he could posses no more than 100 plants.

Cite?

He had more, so he intended to violate the state law also.

Wrong. The act itself is not evidence of intent.

Try this:

Rosenthal says he believed Oakland officials had the power to grant him legal immunity under a section of the federal Controlled Substances Act, the very law the feds are now using to prosecute him. The provision is usually used to shield law enforcement agents who possess, buy, or sell drugs in the course of their duties. Oakland decided it could also be used to protect cannabis growers and distributors working with its Medical Marijuana Program, created by city ordinance to carry out the provisions of Prop. 215.

Lt. Redford Hart, the city's law enforcement point person on medical marijuana, said the DEA never informed him that the city was violating federal law and could be subject to federal prosecution. Former Oakland City Council member Nate Miley and Oakland assistant city attorney Barbara Parker also testified that they believed Rosenthal was immune from criminal and civil liability.

"When the ordinance immunizing officers passed, I felt I was immune and that the city officials knew what I was doing," Rosenthal said. "Who am I to argue with the city attorney?"

Rosenthal's defense attorneys say the federal government's prosecution is a form of entrapment because Oakland officials told him his conduct was legal. And he believed what they said was true. It's still unclear if Rosenthal will take the stand in his own defense or whether Breyer will permit him to testify about his state of mind at the time of the alleged crime. "I think it would throw the court into legal disruption if he stopped me from testifying on my own behalf," Rosenthal said.

Source.

[philman_36]

2:1.32!

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Is Federal government involvement in intrastate drug policies proper according to your philosophy of the Constitution?

Probably not, but in the real world if there is to be a change it must be at the federal level. Test cases will just sent guys to jail.

[MrLeRoy]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/831245/posts

Did a top DEA agent tell local medical marijuana advocates they would be left alone by the feds? The question was the center of legal skirmishing Monday, as lawyers for marijuana guru Ed Rosenthal filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals trying to force Judge Charles Breyer to allow testimony from Mary Pat Jacobs, a key defense witness. Rosenthal faces up to life in prison for cultivating marijuana and conspiracy.

In a sworn affidavit, Sonoma Alliance for Medical Marijuana spokeswoman Mary Pat Jacobs testified that she had several conversations about medical marijuana with Drug Enforcement Administration Supervisor Mike Heald.

During those conversations, Heald stated, "the DEA was not interested in interfering" with the implementation of Proposition 215, the medical marijuana law passed by California voters in 1996, according to Jacobs' Jan. 16 testimony.

She also said she regularly discussed Heald's alleged comments with Rosenthal, leaving the pot advocate and writer with the impression that he was on solid legal ground in experimenting with the growth of different types of cannabis.

Breyer -- who has said that medicinal marijuana is not relevant to Rosenthal's drug cultivation case -- has instructed the jury to ignore any testimony touching on the medical uses of the marijuana Rosenthal has openly admitted to growing.

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list ping

[Mark Bahner]

"One time I was in an administrative hearing and I commented to my attorney 'that's not fair."

"He said 'what does fair have to do with it. You forget that it is a court of law, not a court of justice. If you want justice, change the law.'"

Yes, if you want the federal government to have the power to criminalize the growing or use of marijuana, pass a Constitutional amendment to authorize the government to have that power. Absent such an amendment, it is the LAW that the federal government doesn't have that power.

"Sad as it may seem, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means."

Rubbish! See my previous post.

"They have ruled on federal law pre-empting state law."

But federal laws do NOT preempt the Constitution. The Constitution's 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from criminalizing the within-state growth, possession, or sale of marijuana (or ANY other drug).

"We may not like it, but this guy is going to jail."

I most certainly DON'T like it, when the federal government violates the Constitution. Whether Mr. Rosenthal goes to jail remains to be seen.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Cite?

I was relying on information in a story in an earlier thread.

In any event ignorance of a law is no defense.

Try telling a judge that you thought there was no requirement for a driver's license and see if that works.

[Mark Bahner]

"OK, just doing a consistency check :) Lots of people like to cherry-pick on here."

Thanks. :-) As far as I know, my political philosophy is totally consistent. I want the federal government to follow the Constitution in EVERY case. (Even though I realize that will mean no Social Security or Medicare for me.)

[general_re]

In any event ignorance of a law is no defense.

His defense is that officials immunized him from prosecution under any extant state law regarding the cultivation, sale and distribution of marijuana. Therefore, he cannot have intended to violate state law, based on his good-faith belief that his actions were sanctioned by the state.

[Ken H]

I'm just agreeing with the point that the three branches of the Federal government and the States will give the full weight of legality to a USSC decision.

I agree that the USSC and the other branches are not in accordance with the simple, clear language of the Constitution in many cases. Federal involvement in education, welfare, health care, drug policies, and the environment are some examples of this.

[Dinsdale]

In any event ignorance of a law is no defense.

Further Rosenthal has the same status as a city cop who is in possession in the course of his work. They are explicitly not covered by federal drug laws (otherwise all city and state narcs would be guilty of federal crimes).

[philman_36]

To allow any evidence of the conspiracy between the city and the defendant would be improper because conspiracy was not charged, and so was not part of the trial.
California marijuana guru found guilty
He faces a maximum of life in prison when he is sentenced for the marijuana cultivation and conspiracy charges.
Marijuana Grower's Trial Under Way Oakland Tribune
He's charged with conspiracy, cultivation and maintaining a property...
I can find about a dozen more articles...
Of course, the way you've phrased your statement makes it correct because there were no charges of conspiracy between the city and the defendant. Nice dodge.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...But federal laws do NOT preempt the Constitution.

I agree that there have been some bad rulings regarding the Constitution, but you should check on some rulings regarding pre-emption.

They have ruled that anytime the intent of Congress is to pre-empt state laws in any subject, the pre-emption is a fact and state laws to the contrary are not valid.

That is a fact.

[Mark Bahner]

Ken H. writes, "I agree that the USSC and the other branches are not in accordance with the simple, clear language of the Constitution in many cases. Federal involvement in education, welfare, health care, drug policies, and the environment are some examples of this."

Good! Go away, and sin no more! ;-) And may I never again read, on Free Republic, "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means."

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...His defense is that officials immunized him from prosecution under any extant state law

Does the state law give the authority of immunizing to the City Council?

If he was so smart why didn't he know that they did not have the authority? Or that the application of the state law was not in their jurisdiction?

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Of course, the way you've phrased your statement makes it correct...

That is why I phrased it that way. That is also why the judge would not allow evidence indicating the existance of a conspiracy between the defendant and the city into evidence.

He will be upheld on that also.

[Mark Bahner]

"I agree that there have been some bad rulings regarding the Constitution,..."

And would you also agree that Nolan Ryan stuck out "some" batters? ;-)

"...but you should check on some rulings regarding pre-emption."

This issue in this case is NOT "pre-emption." The Congress of the United States, and that miserable, Constitution-violating piece of slime, Franklin Roosevelt, broke The Law (the Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment) when they first legislated against marijuana.

Subsequent Congresses and Presidents have ALSO violated The Law (the Constitution) when they legislated regarding marijuana.

So the issue is NOT "pre-emption"...because NO Congress and NO President is authorized *by the Constitution* to violate the Constitution.

"They have ruled that anytime the intent of Congress is to pre-empt state laws in any subject,..."

No, not ANY subject! The Tenth Amendment restricts MOST subjects to the powers of the States (or "The People"...which is even better).

Since the Constitution does NOT specifically enumerate a federal power to criminalize the growing, use, or within-state sale of marijuana (or ANY drug), the federal government is breaking The Law. "Pre-emption" doesn't apply. The CONSTITUTION is the Supreme Law of the Land.

That's a fact.

[JudyB1938]

I sure am glad you read through to "the end" of my comment. :0)

[philman_36]

That is also why the judge would not allow evidence indicating the existance of a conspiracy between the defendant and the city into evidence.
Was such evidence presented? How do you know that?