Jury Left in Dark at Marijuana Trial

The Press Democrat ^ | Feb. 3, 2003 | Michael Coit

[Wolfie]

Jury Left in Dark at Marijuana Trial

North Bay residents made up nearly half of the jury that found a marijuana advocate guilty in a high-profile federal medical marijuana trial -- and several are angry about the outcome.

Jurors said pot grower Ed Rosenthal never had a chance with U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer blocking defense attempts to show Rosenthal was growing marijuana for dispensaries and clubs serving seriously ill people. The only evidence left was that Rosenthal was guilty of conspiring to grow more than 100 plants.

Rosenthal might have been acquitted, jurors said, if the judge had allowed the defense to show he was officially working for Oakland under the city's medical marijuana evidence.

"If we'd known he was hired by the city, I would have said this guy didn't deserve any of this," said Pamela Klarkowski, a Petaluma nurse on the jury. "I feel used. It's horrible. We didn't get the whole picture."

Charles Sackett, the jury foreman, said many jurors were frustrated that they faithfully followed the judge's instructions only to learn after the trial that they weren't given any evidence about why Rosenthal was growing the marijuana.

"It's ironic. The public probably knew much more about this case than we did," said Sackett, a Sebastopol landscape contractor.

"The reason some of the jurors have been so angry is because we weren't given all of the evidence. The evidence allowed just tilted the outcome of the case to the point where the outcome was a done deal from the beginning."

Federal law does not allow marijuana cultivation for medical uses, and the judge prevented Rosenthal's lawyers from using the state's medical marijuana law as a defense.

Richard Meyer, a spokesman for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, said after Friday's verdict in San Francisco, "There is no such thing as medical marijuana."

Of the jury's 12 members, four were from Sonoma County and one of the two alternates was from the North Bay, Sackett said.

The number of North Bay jurors surprised those on the panel given the region's strong support for Proposition 215, the medical marijuana initiative California voters approved in 1996.

Those interviewed Sunday said they voted in favor of the proposition, but set aside their beliefs, as the judge instructed, to hear the trial and reach a verdict.

What bothered some was that something obviously was missing and that turned out to be any evidence about medical marijuana.

"It was like a kangaroo court. It's like we were just following orders," said Marney Craig, a Novato property manager on the jury. "I'm horrified and dismayed that I wasn't strong enough to stop it."

In the trial's aftermath, jurors said they are learning the concept of deciding on a verdict regardless of the law in a case, which is known as juror nullification. Some said they might have voted for acquittal and perhaps forced a mistrial had they known more about the concept.

"What we may have said is there's something more to this. I cannot in good conscience make a decision on this ... we don't have enough information," Klarkowski said.

"It's obvious there were several of us that had doubts about what we were doing," Craig said.

With Rosenthal facing a minimum five-year sentence, Sackett said the case doesn't bode well for other medical marijuana growers facing federal charges.

"States' rights got thrown out. Patients' rights got thrown out. Some of us are really questioning the process and the letter of the law," he said.

Rosenthal supporters demonstrated outside the courthouse daily and handed out fliers explaining jurors' options.

Medical marijuana advocates said juror nullification could be an issue in future federal trials for people growing pot for people with medical needs.

Several cases against Sonoma County medical marijuana growers are pending in federal court in San Francisco, and advocates fear more arrests will be made by federal agents.

The federal prosecutions have followed publicized battles between then-Sonoma County District Attorney Mike Mullins and medical marijuana advocates over guidelines for growing pot for patients.

In May 2001, after losing two high-profile cases brought under state law that ended with acquittals, Mullins and the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chief's Association adopted guidelines drafted with the Sonoma Alliance for Medical Marijuana. The guidelines allow patients with physician approval to grow or possess up to three pounds with up to 99 plants.

"It goes all out the window when you go down to federal court in San Francisco. It means nothing," said the alliance's Kumari Sivadas.

[SocietyDweller]

Give me a break already. If pot growers in jail had wings, prisons would be airports. Enough already with the antimarijuana stuff.

[etcetera]

Grounds for appeal, mistrial, or judicial misconduct charges?

[coloradan]

Can jurors sue a judge for denying them the opportunity to hear "the whole truth" as the witnesses are sworn to do?

[coloradan]

Bump

[robertpaulsen]

Fair and balanced reporting from The Press Democrat.

[Wolfie]

I really don't think there was anything out of the ordinary in the judge's instruction. These days, the robed-ones don't want jurors to even know nullification is a possibility.

But the judge taking over questioning of a defense witness might pose some interesting problems.

[lodwick]

Great post - bttt

[PaxMacian]

U.S. Drug Entrapment Administration
One branch of gooberment says, "do this for us"
another branch says you get to go to jail for helping us.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>Grounds for appeal, mistrial, or judicial misconduct charges?

Read the Supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution.

The state is barred from making laws that conflict with Federal Laws. The State cannot overrule the Feds.

[vin-one]

I think this one might end up biting the fed's in the butt
This one is easy for appeal. However slanted the judges up the ladder might make appeal difficult,
I predict big back lashes for the fed on this one.

[ampat]

Maybe the defendant should sue the state.

[Wolfie]

ping

[PaxMacian]

The Federal Gov't is barred from making unconstitutional laws but that did not stop them from declaring an evil and unconstitutional war upon its own PEOPLE.

"I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Preamble: ...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

Amendment V: nor shall (anyone) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the PEOPLE.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."--Thomas Jefferson

[philman_36]

ping

gong

[FreeTally]

As another poster pointed out in another thread on this topic, the Federal government pretty much showed that this trial was a sham and a vendetta against Rosenthal by not filing charges of conspiracy to distribute drugs against the City of Oakland.

I wonder if the defense attorny brought that up(probably tried, and was shouted down by the judge).

[etcetera]

" The state is barred from making laws that conflict with Federal Laws. The State cannot overrule the Feds"

I don't think that's the issue. The article suggests that the judge "guided" the jury to pre-determined conclusion, which means that the defendant didn't get a fair, inbiased trial.

[steve50]

I don't expect to see an honest person on O'Reilly discussing this case.

Won't need defense lawyers before long, with a few more judges like this.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...The Federal Gov't is barred from making unconstitutional laws but that did not stop them from declaring an evil and unconstitutional war upon its own PEOPLE.

I was just commenting on whether they could win appeal.

The Judge ruled that the State Law and everything around it was not relevent to the Federal case because the state has no control over federal law. He was correct and so an appeal based on anything to do with that ruling will fail. (My opinion)

[Jason_b]

"It was like a kangaroo court. It's like we were just following orders," said Marney Craig, a Novato property manager on the jury. "I'm horrified and dismayed that I wasn't strong enough to stop it."

Well,

fully informed jurors

Part of being a fully informed juror is knowing that you will not be welcome in court, the judge wants the jury to judge the facts, not the law.

[steve-b]

What bothered some was that something obviously was missing

Well, then, they should have acquitted on that basis -- if the prosecution is obviously evading a significant issue, that's reasonable doubt right there.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[SarahW]

Richard Meyer, a spokesman for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, said after Friday's verdict in San Francisco, "There is no such thing as medical marijuana."

Arrogant pr*ck award

[EBUCK]

Richard Meyer, a spokesman for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, said after Friday's verdict in San Francisco, "There is no such thing as medical marijuana."

So what then, pray tell, is the goobermint handing out to those 5 fed MM patients? Illegal pot? If so then somone needs to bring charges against the fed for distribution.

[Wolfie]

Shhhh...people aren't supposed to know about that.

(And won't the Feds be happy when the last of those 5 finally dies off?)

[mr.pink]

Federal law does not allow marijuana cultivation for medical uses,

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. ;o)

Didn't Mr. Rosenthal realize he was breaking the law?, or had he determined he did not like the law and that therefore it did not apply to him and philantropic motivation$?

[EBUCK]

Yes they will (be happy that is).

I'm up for jury duty on the 12th. I think I'll go thru a quick overview of my rights as such...

[MrLeRoy]

Richard Meyer, a spokesman for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, said after Friday's verdict in San Francisco, "There is no such thing as medical marijuana."

He's a liar. "there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief. [...] there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." - Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999), Institute of Medicine

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...I'm up for jury duty on the 12th. I think I'll go thru a quick overview of my rights as such...

You won't make it on the jury. One of the sides will have you tossed because you know too much. Knowledgable jurrors are not desired by either side.

[EBUCK]

If he was growing more than 99 plants then I think they got him dead to rights, he broke the State law even if the state directed to do so. And I'm sure he knew it.

But I think he was willing to sacrifice himself to bring this to the courts. Of course, the feds trumped him with an overlord judge and a bunch of idiot jurors.

[EBUCK]

I'll answer questions honestly but I won't offer any more than they ask. Small town, I might get on, never know.

(but you're prolly right, if they dig I'll be thrown out)

[Dan(9698)]

>>>which means that the defendant didn't get a fair, inbiased trial.

My opinion is that he will spend a lot of time in a "fair inbiased" jail.

[mr.pink]

But I think he was willing to sacrifice himself to bring this to the courts.

Then I salute him for being willing to go to jail for his cause.

One quick question, was he selling his weed...or giving it away?

Also, I have no problem with the Judge not allowing his motivation/excuse to be told to the jury. Many folks who commit crimes have sympathetic reasons for doing so, many are better than this gentleman's.

[EBUCK]

The judge knew that emotional argument would kill the states case with simple-minded jurors so he invoked "tyrant" power and limited discussion to the actual fed law that was the basis for the charge. Good for the State but very very very bad, I think, for a judge to be doing such things. Presents an obvious conflict if a judge is framing the discussion in a biased way.

I think he was doing a bit of both. Giving to individuals and selling to the state, or thru the state, not to sure tho.

[Dan(9698)]

He is a FEDERAL judge.

It was a FEDERAL trial.

He was applying FEDERAL LAW.

That is his job.

[mr.pink]

Good for the State but very very very bad, I think, for a judge to be doing such things.

Actually, it's pretty standard for Judges to use their judgement to determine the scope of arguement presented.

It would be very very very bad for a judge to preclude evidence that proved Mr. Rosebnthal was not in fact growing weed.

[SUSSA]

The issue here is far bigger than what happens to pot growers in San Francisco. The problem here is the jury didn’t know its rights and duty. The jurors have the right and duty to judge the law as well as the facts. They also have the right and duty to judge whether the law is being applied fairly in a particular case.

Jury nullification is there to shield the society. Alcohol prohibition was repealed when juries started refusing to convict people for alcohol use and sale.

Jury nullification can be used to refuse to convict abortion protesters, people charged with unconstitutional gun laws, and in any number of instances where people think the law is unjust.

It can also be used in pot cases. This might cause some here to be upset and cause others to cheer. However, looking at the bigger picture, jury nullification has more good than bad to recommend it.

Few here among the drug warriors would have a problem with a jury that refused to convict a peaceful abortion protester. The vast majority of the 2A advocates would have a problem with a jury that refused to convict on a carry charge.

The pot situation makes this case emotional. But it is one more example of why we should see to it that every citizen knows they have the right and duty to judge the law and the facts.

[Uncle Hal]

I live in Sonoma County and subscribe to the Press Democrat. It is one of the most left leaning papers in the country. We only take it for local news, sports, crosswords etc. It is nearly as liberal as the SF Chronical. The paper has its on agenda and it is towards the left.

[Poohbah]

One quick question, was he selling his weed...or giving it away?

Selling.

[EBUCK]

Sure he is a fed judge but he intentionally framed a biased argument, purposely ignorized (made ignorant, probably not a real word) the jury in order to make the prosocutions case stronger. That is wrong. Judges are supposed to be impartial, even as employees of the system they are supposed to remain nuetral.

[EBUCK]

IMO, and I'm no lawyer here, there was certainly good grounds for the argument to include State law. Omision again, IMO, constitutes a lobotomy of the jurors.

[FreeTally]

The paper has its on agenda and it is towards the left.

So are you claiming that a writer at the paper made up the statements from the jurists? If not, the paper's "politics" are irrelevant to the fact that the jurists were lied to and guided.

[mr.pink]

They also have the right and duty to judge whether the law is being applied fairly in a particular case.

No they don't.The question of whether "the law is being applied fairly in a particular case" is determined by Judicial review.

Jurors are to render an opinion of guilt or innocence based soley on evidence presented. It's that simple.

[Poohbah]

So are you claiming that a writer at the paper made up the statements from the jurists?

I wouldn't put it past a newspaper to ask questions designed to give a specific answer--witness the phenomenon of push polling...

[headsonpikes]

FIJA bump.

[FreeTally]

there was certainly good grounds for the argument to include State law. Omision again, IMO, constitutes a lobotomy of the jurors.

Not just State law, but the fact that he was working for the City of Oakland. The Feds would have to bring charges against the City for conspiracy to distribute marijuana.

I am actually disapointed that the State of California and the City of Oakland did not provide Mr. Rosenthal with the full force of the State and local law enforcement to protect him from the Feds while involved in work for the City under a State law.

[etcetera]

"My opinion is that he will spend a lot of time in a "fair inbiased" jail."

Excuse me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but you seem to be happy that a proponent of medical marijuana is found guilty through what may be contrued to be judicial misconduct.

I'm suggesting that such action could lead to an appeal of the guilty verdict and may lead to charges against a biased judge.

It does no good to our judicial system if people are seen to be be railroaded by overly zealous judges and prosecutors.

And one other question that comes to mind is - was the jury informed of its right to judge both the facts and the law? In other words, did the jury understand its right to "jury nullification", in which case it wouldn't matter if the law was a state or federal statute?

[FreeTally]

I wouldn't put it past a newspaper to ask questions designed to give a specific answer--witness the phenomenon of push polling...

I wouldn't either, but the jurists comments tend to stand on their own.

[EBUCK]

You're wrong on that.

Jury nulification isn't a legend, an abberation or whatever. It is the duty of every jurist to determine the validity of the law in question first, determine if the defendant violated a valid law second.

Your statement is proof of the States sucessful mis-information campaign. Persons that came out with a statement like that in my grandfathers time would have been laughed at....