Posted on 02/05/2003 12:32:32 PM PST by Wolfie
Pot Case Jurors Call For New Trial
They say they were misled when medical marijuana evidence was barred.
Seven jurors who convicted a prominent medical marijuana activist called for a new trial Tuesday, rebelling against what they said was a misleading case and intimidating atmosphere.
At an unusual rally outside the federal courthouse here, several jurors, defiant and shaken, expressed solidarity with defendant Edward Rosenthal four days after convicting him of running a massive pot-growing operation in West Oakland.
Rosenthal is the author of a dozen books about marijuana and a how-to column for pot magazines. He was a major supplier for medical pot dispensaries in the Bay Area. However, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer barred all evidence of medical use at the trial.
Smiling and unbowed, Rosenthal appeared at the noon rally to embrace jurors following a hearing at which the government's motion to take him into custody was denied for the immediate future. He remains free on $200,000 bond. The judge said he may keep Rosenthal out of prison permanently because his case is unusual.
"Both the jury and I were victims of vicious persecution," Rosenthal said at the rally.
The jurors said they began having misgivings as soon as they disbanded Friday. One bit of missing information -- that Rosenthal had been deputized by Oakland to supply that city's pot program -- would have forced them to acquit, they said.
"It was a nightmare for us once we realized what we had done here," said juror Marney Craig.
The Novato property manager said the jurors didn't know if there could be legal reprisals for their protest. But she added, "At this time I don't really care. ... I feel we were sheep. We were manipulated and controlled."
Craig released a joint statement urging a retrial on behalf of five jurors, one alternate and, she said, two or three additional jurors who could not appear.
Charles Sackett, the jury foreman, read an apology to Rosenthal "for having participated in so unfair a court trial."
"I truly do not know if writing you this letter is a contempt of court," the Sebastopol landscape contractor told the defendant, who hugged him. "If it is, perhaps we can share a cell."
In urging Breyer to order Rosenthal into custody earlier Tuesday, prosecutor George Bevan said Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that made marijuana legal under state law for seriously ill patients and caregivers, made no provision for large-scale suppliers.
"The only thing that's exceptional about this case is how it's being portrayed by the defense," he said.
Breyer, however, said the case may fall outside federal sentencing guidelines, which prescribe a prison term of at least five years. Sentencing has been set for June. A defense motion for a new trial probably will be heard in April or May.
With the jurors watching from the front row of his court's spectator section, Breyer said Rosenthal's claim of immunity from prosecution as a city official wasn't frivolous and had not yet been ruled on by the appellate courts.
Which law is that?
In that case, it is intended that someone go to jail. Who do you propose will go to jail if this is an authorized sting operation?
So Democrats will always win. It appears that you are from DU.
The law he is convicted of violating. :-)
Go sell controlled substances and see if you go to jail.
They maybe can't do that, but they "will" do that. (put you in jail.)
Could be, but I saw a story explaining that one of their grounds for appeal was that the judge would not let this evidence in. Maybe I misread the story, but that was the subject of the story.
What do you understand as the grounds for appeal?
I think that's the most important statement in this entire thread. In this country, as in others, courts DEPEND on a reputation for honesty and impartiality to have any power at all. Courts do not have armies, they do not directly run the police, and they don't have thier own taxing authorities. To a greater extent than the other branches of government, they depend on moral authority to get people to do what they want.
Up to now, a large part of the court's moral authority has been provided by the existence of juries. "Well, the judge may be a crook, but 12 jurors rendered a guilty verdict ... so the accused must be guilty."
And here we have a case in which a group of jurors has apparently decided that they have been deceived by a judge, and are making their complaints public. That's a huge blow to the moral authority of all US courts. Who on this thread did not ask themselves how often judicial deception, rather than juror decision-making, has been responsible for "lawful" convictions? Who did not read this story, and feel that many other jury trials might -- just might -- have been a sham?
I happen to believe that it's a shame that Ed Rosenthal was convicted. Once, I might have been able to console myself with the thought that I wasn't on the jury, and that perhaps the jury, having heard more than I did about the case, acted correctly. After hearing about this case, I don't know that I will ever again be able to so console myself.
I am sure that many people who feel the way I do, and so the courts have lost a great deal of their moral authority over us. And that's the real shame here. Widely accepted law and courts are, in general, crucial to the peaceful and safe operation of any modern society. Publicised deception of a jury diminishes that acceptance of the courts and the law, and brings us one step closer to violent and dangerous anarchy.
Interesting...think I'll go try to smoke some of my "food" now...I wonder what smoked strawberries are like?
The law makes no such distinction.
There are always grounds for appeal. As to whether it will be a success, most are not.
As explained in the article, and complained of by jurors in posts to this thread, the complaint is that the judge would not allow any evidence of the agreement between the defendant and the city to possess and distribute pot.
Since any such agreement was held to be unlawful by the judge it then would be a "conspiracy" between the the city and the defendant. Any agreement to violate the law was not relevant in the case as there was no charge of conspiracy between the defendant and the city.
The objection is that the defense attorney was trying to get the message of this agreement before the jury and the judge would not allow the questions to continue that would get it in the record.
The law does not allow the cops to distribute pot.
Good police practice requires the police to distribute narcotics as part of their undercover operations. The undercover officer sells pot to an unsuspecting buyer, thus distributing it. Despite the fact that his action perfectly fits the definition of the crime of trafficking in narcotics, he is immune from prosecution so long as it is done as part of his official duties. If the state can immunize one official from federal prosecution, it can immunize another from prosecution in the performance of his illegal duties. Like Rosenthal.
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.