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.
This is why the prosecution will loose on appeal.
Do you think all city and state cops should be required to be sanctioned by the feds?
I will bet that there are cops who have been prosecuted for possesion and distribution of drugs that would be more like what he is convicted of.
If they use some themselves or give some away they will be in the slammer.
The federal law explicitly permits states and localities to claim immunity from drug laws for their officers while engaged in officially sanctioned acts. As per the snippet I posted above, this is to prevent things like narcotics officers being prosecuted when they do things like go undercover to buy and sell drugs from traffickers. The City of Oakland decided that Rosenthal was such an officer, engaging in officially sanctioned activity, and hence was entitled to immunity for his acts.
If he was so smart why didn't he know that they did not have the authority?
Rosenthal believed in good faith that the officials of the city of Oakland had the authority to do what they did. The officials of the city of Oakland believed in good faith that the federal law permitted them to do what they did. Until Rosenthal was arrested, nobody from the federal government apparently bothered to tell them otherwise.
The city was aware of what he was doing as an agent of the city.
The Supreme court will have the last word on pre-emption.
I have been down that road in an administrative matter and they ruled that if Congress has determined to regulate in a particular matter, then pre-emtion takes place.
From stories in earlier threads my impression was that the defense wanted to present evidence along that line, and the judge ruled it inadmissable.
I was just going by what was in those stories. I have no first hand knowledge.
They did not have the authority to allow anyone, cops included to give drugs to anyone for their own use.
I will bet that if a cop gave anyone a controlled substance, they would go to jail just like this guy.
This was no sting operation as you have described it. It was possession for distribution.
Cops cannot do that and the city cannot authorize it. Only doctors and pharmasists with authorization by way of a federal authorization can distribute controlled substances. I will bet that all your cops could have told them that.
Talking about it will not keep him out of jail. If it is to be changed, it must be done at the federal level.
Sad as it may seem, your interpretation of the Constitution may be correct, but it will carry no weight as things are now. :-(
What is it when an undercover officer sells crack to an unsuspecting buyer? Possession with intent to distribute. He possesses it, he intends to distribute it - he must be guilty of a crime, right?
No, because the law permits public officials immunity for such acts in furtherance of the state's classic right to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Just like Rosenthal.
The city cannot authorize an agent to do what they have no power to do. They cannot distribute controlled substances, and they cannot authorize an agent to do it either.
To do so is called "acting under color of law" and is not permitted.
You're probably right, but I'll bet Satan has Caller ID...and uses it.
He was not working for the federal government, big difference.
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.