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.
Inapposite analogy on its face. Such lawmen were in direct violation of the equal-protection clauses of the Constitution. Which portion of the Constitution did Rosenthal run afoul of?
That anyone thought that those guys had an honest belief that they were following the law is laughable.
They were democrats and were trying to redefine the meaning of "is". They were trying to skirt the law.
Why doesn't the City Attorney take over the pushers functions if it is so important and legal?
The Supremacy Clause which instructs judges in all states how to treat federal law.
The Supreme Court ruled that the feds could enforce the federal law. That was as fair a warning as the equal-protection clause.
They tried to skirt the law and got caught. Not the first time something like that happened.
You mean the federal law that says that duly deputized officers of state and local authorities are immune from prosecution under federal drug statutes for their official acts? That federal law?
You doing some weird interpretations, here, boy. Nobody "supporting" pot. It looks like you got no common sense. But, what the hey, you have already made that evident. Over and over again....
That is the one.
But when a law was tried to be applied to what it was not intended to do, that is the redefinition of "is".
The court ruled that there is no such thing as "medical" dope. It is a perversion or redefinition of the meaning of "is" to try to skirt the law by applying it to "medical" dope. There were no "official acts" concerning medical dope.
Ah, so now the federal government will undertake to define the nature and "proper" functions of officials of the various states? And hold the states to that definition, under penalty of law for those officials? How thoughtful of them.
No thanks.
"We're awfully sorry that your brakes failed on that icy road, Mr. tpaine, but you did hit that other car and cause the death of the other driver. Twenty years for you..."
LOL! I am supposed to shirk away because Rufus T. Blowhard called me a "boy". I am so sorry massa.
It is hilarious watching your alls indignation over this. If you don't like the law why don't you contact Ed Rosenthal's congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and have it changed. I have no doubt she will have a symapthetic ear.
That is nothing new either. They made all the southern states change there voting laws, and rightly so.
If you want to change dope laws you must do it at the federal level. That is apparent.
The Supreme Court rightly or wrongly ruled that the federal drug laws could be enforced. How do you propose that be changed?
That is also a straw man argument.
It is presumed that officials are following the law. When it can be shown that they are not, they lose their immunity.
No Judy you just call people insane for giving a helpful suggestion, that if you think this is such a travesty that you should go to the person who probably would have the most symapthetic ear, to Mr. Rosenthal's plight, Ed Rosenthal's probable congressperson, Bay area congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi.
Because those laws were, once again, in conflict with the equal-protection clauses of the Constitution.
If you want to change dope laws you must do it at the federal level.
LOL. So much for those "traditional police powers" accorded to the states, eh? What the hell - the doctrine's only a hundred and thirty years old, right?
The Supreme Court rightly or wrongly ruled that the federal drug laws could be enforced. How do you propose that be changed?
We are still left with remedies for changing the law, even a few remedies that don't involve the courts...
Like when they follow the law that says that duly deputized officials of state and local authorities are immune from prosecution under federal drug statutes for their official acts, such as the act of distributing drugs. Like that 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.