States Rights?
Was wondering what some of you conservatives think about this case.
Top Stories - Reuters
Calif. Jurors Convict, Then Decry Marijuana Verdict
Wed Feb 5, 3:09 PM ET
\t
Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Adam Tanner
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - First the jury convicted one of America's most outspoken marijuana advocates on drug charges. Now, just days later, jurors are praising him, expressing unusual regret about their verdict and saying vital evidence was withheld from them.
Space Shuttle Columbia
Special Coverage
\t
The San Francisco Federal Court jury found Ed Rosenthal, 58, a columnist who has written many books on marijuana, guilty on Friday on three counts of growing marijuana. The judge in the case refused to let jurors hear Rosenthal's defense: that he was growing the drug for medical use, something legal under state law while illegal under federal law.
"We obviously came up with the wrong verdict," jury member Marney Craig said in an interview on Wednesday. "Ed Rosenthal did not get a fair trial.
"Nothing we can do can make up for the fact that we are sending him to prison."
Craig, a property manager who is also 58 years old, is one of several jurors who complain that they were not told that Rosenthal was cultivating the weed as an "officer" for the city of Oakland's medical marijuana program.
Judge Charles Breyer did not allow defense lawyers to introduce testimony on that issue because growing marijuana for any reason is a federal offense.
He did not return calls on the case. One of the prosecutors in the case, Geoffrey Hansen, also declined to comment.
Experts say a change of heart by the jury does not have legal significance, although it could win public support for the defendant. "It is rare but not unheard of," said Peter Joy, director of trial and advocacy program at the Washington University in St Louis School of Law.
"It typically happens when there has been some information that has been withheld from them that they feel would have affected the decision that has been made," he said. "In and of itself, it does not have any legal significance."
ROSENTHAL THANKS THE JURY
Rosenthal, who is free on bail pending a sentencing hearing in June, praised the jury on Wednesday even though its original verdict could mean spending the rest of his life behind bars.
The judge denied a government motion on Tuesday to imprison Rosenthal immediately, saying there were important legal issues to consider in the appeal.
"I am really grateful to the jurors," Rosenthal told Reuters. "It was very brave of them to come out and express their views."
"It does show that I did not get a fair trial."
At the same time, he said their statements did not change the verdict. "Right now I am still convicted of three felonies," said Rosenthal, whose books include "Marijuana Grower's Handbook: The Indoor High Yield Guide" and "Marijuana Question? Ask Ed."
"What they did has no legal ramifications ... But by the end of the case I believe will be found innocent," he said, referring to his efforts to overturn the decision on appeal.
The Rosenthal case marks the latest battle over medical marijuana between the nation's most populous state and the federal government, which has recently been cracking down on California clubs providing the drug to ill patients.
Nine states, including California, allow medical use of marijuana under state law, but the federal government prohibits such use.
Top Stories - Reuters
Calif. Jurors Convict, Then Decry Marijuana Verdict
Wed Feb 5, 3:09 PM ET
\t
Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Adam Tanner
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - First the jury convicted one of America's most outspoken marijuana advocates on drug charges. Now, just days later, jurors are praising him, expressing unusual regret about their verdict and saying vital evidence was withheld from them.
Space Shuttle Columbia
Special Coverage
\t
The San Francisco Federal Court jury found Ed Rosenthal, 58, a columnist who has written many books on marijuana, guilty on Friday on three counts of growing marijuana. The judge in the case refused to let jurors hear Rosenthal's defense: that he was growing the drug for medical use, something legal under state law while illegal under federal law.
"We obviously came up with the wrong verdict," jury member Marney Craig said in an interview on Wednesday. "Ed Rosenthal did not get a fair trial.
"Nothing we can do can make up for the fact that we are sending him to prison."
Craig, a property manager who is also 58 years old, is one of several jurors who complain that they were not told that Rosenthal was cultivating the weed as an "officer" for the city of Oakland's medical marijuana program.
Judge Charles Breyer did not allow defense lawyers to introduce testimony on that issue because growing marijuana for any reason is a federal offense.
He did not return calls on the case. One of the prosecutors in the case, Geoffrey Hansen, also declined to comment.
Experts say a change of heart by the jury does not have legal significance, although it could win public support for the defendant. "It is rare but not unheard of," said Peter Joy, director of trial and advocacy program at the Washington University in St Louis School of Law.
"It typically happens when there has been some information that has been withheld from them that they feel would have affected the decision that has been made," he said. "In and of itself, it does not have any legal significance."
ROSENTHAL THANKS THE JURY
Rosenthal, who is free on bail pending a sentencing hearing in June, praised the jury on Wednesday even though its original verdict could mean spending the rest of his life behind bars.
The judge denied a government motion on Tuesday to imprison Rosenthal immediately, saying there were important legal issues to consider in the appeal.
"I am really grateful to the jurors," Rosenthal told Reuters. "It was very brave of them to come out and express their views."
"It does show that I did not get a fair trial."
At the same time, he said their statements did not change the verdict. "Right now I am still convicted of three felonies," said Rosenthal, whose books include "Marijuana Grower's Handbook: The Indoor High Yield Guide" and "Marijuana Question? Ask Ed."
"What they did has no legal ramifications ... But by the end of the case I believe will be found innocent," he said, referring to his efforts to overturn the decision on appeal.
The Rosenthal case marks the latest battle over medical marijuana between the nation's most populous state and the federal government, which has recently been cracking down on California clubs providing the drug to ill patients.
Nine states, including California, allow medical use of marijuana under state law, but the federal government prohibits such use.
Comments
shoot, half the population of austin will soon be in federal jail and all the 7-11's will shut down as munchie consumption will drop greatly
what's funny is that with a republican in office we have seen huge growth in the federal government (homeland security, new cabinet position, new federal airport screeners) and a decrease in states rights....i thought republicans were for states rights and smaller federal government???
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
g
[QB]what does the case have to do with?? states rights vs federal rights...who brought up the case and why?? was he arrested by federal or state officers??<hr></blockquote>
Read the article.
The San Francisco Federal Court...
Federal court. Federal law.
United States Constitution.
Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
<img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
I work for a wholesaler who sells papers, pipes and other "smokeshop specialties"...his business has been slower than usual. Has had some storeowners close down because of the law cracking down on "headshops".
Of course the fact that people are quitting tobacco smoking and the economy in general is bad doesn't help either...
Legalize the use of hemp...it'll spike our sales and there are thousands of other uses for it than smoking it...dumbass politicians, lobbyists and corporations....
... This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. ...
Otherwise, the 10th Amendment would make any federal law on drugs seemingly unconstitutional.
It would be nice to see that law overturned. But there can be no claim that any party has acted unfairly.
but you still haven't answered why was this case brought to federal court?? could it be because of bush and rumsfeld?? i know that if i was president or attorney general that this wouldn't have been brought to trial...i'd be out looking for bin laden and kiddie porn and corporate criminals and people selling herion to kids...pot is such a non-issue, especially for the few who actually get a medical exemption....g
sure federal law trumps state law, but we still only take the cases we want...lots of things get put aside or not looked at or issued fines...here we go full barrel at a medical pot user?? it must be because the federal government wants to go heavy at medical pot users....and you have to ask why? and you can't deny that it is a republican issue since the republicans are in power and pushing this....g
ps...and i'm not saying the republicans are acting "unfairly"...it is within their rights to do this...but again why...and again, please get them out of office...where is the smaller federal government?? where are the "we believe in more state rights and less federal government involvment"...these are clearly things the republicans run on but don't believe in when they get in power...there is soooo little difference between the parties at time...whoever is in power wants to stay in power and will do whatever they want....fun world...
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>but you still haven't answered why was this case brought to federal court??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it was a violation of federal law.
Hello McFly!
[quote]<strong>could it be because of bush and rumsfeld??</strong><hr></blockquote>
No.
For God's sake you can make the "marijuana should be legal" argument without getting silly and off-topic.
Because it was a violation of federal law.<hr></blockquote>Nope. The Federal Govt can choose which cases it chooses to agressively prosecute. In this case the Feds decided in 1970 (controlled substances act) that marijuana is a class 1 controlled substance, which puts it in the same category as heroin, meth and cocaine. Until this time (the sad reign of Bush II) the Feds have not been actively prosecuting medical marijuana cases. Despite NIH studies and a summary compiled by the USFDA of medical studies by six states testifiying to the efficacy of medical marijuana in certain cases where other known drugs have failed to alleviate pain, the present stance of the Federal Government is that medical marijuana is an excuse for drug dealers to distribute a class 1 narcotic.
BTW the Feds are also suing the state of California of their latest clean air laws. The Feds filed an amicus brief supporting Diamler-Chrysler and GM in their suit agianst California and their zero-emissions program (which by the way is the only way that the state can meet EPA clean air standards).
So when the GOP trumpets states rights what exactly do they mean?
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
<strong>
So when the GOP trumpets states rights what exactly do they mean? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well they don't exactly mean states' rights.
[quote]Gov. George Bush said he backs a state's right to decide whether to allow medical use of marijuana, a position that puts him sharply at odds with Republicans on Capitol Hill. "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose," the governor said recently in Seattle in response to a reporter's question.
Chuck Thomas, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a medical marijuana lobbying group, praised Mr.Â*Bush as "courageous" and "consistent on states' rights. I would hope he would be an example for Republicans in Congress."
Aides said Mr. Bush does not support legalizing marijuana for medical use. But his position supporting state self-determination opens the door to medical marijuana use in some places. President Clinton and most Republican lawmakers, by contrast, oppose all state medical marijuana legalization laws, saying they could lead to abuse.<hr></blockquote>From <a href="http://www.mpp.org/news/dmn102099.html"; target="_blank">Dallas Morning News</a>, October 20, 1999. It seems pretty clear that at some point in time states rights did mean something to Bush.
<strong>It seems pretty clear that at some point in time states rights did mean something to Bush. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that was what you would call politics.
<strong>many things are against federal law that we don't take to trial...we took this to trial...why??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because of our silly War on Drugs.
[quote]<strong>of course it has to do with bush and rumsfeld...hello mcfly, without them this would not have gone forward...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're telling me that no federal court hearings are allowed to go forward without approval of the U.S. Attorney General and the President of the United States?
[quote]<strong>.we choose not to prosecute crimes all the time....when the government chooses to take a case to trial it is very much a decision of the people in charge...g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bush and Rumsfeld had nothing to do with this case. And the fact that you seem to think that the highest of the Executive Branch get involved in pot-grower cases is amusing to no end.
--
cowerd:
[quote]<strong>Nope. The Federal Govt can choose which cases it chooses to agressively prosecute.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How the hell does that refute my statement that the trial was held in federal court because it was a federal crime?
If you're going to try to engage me in a debate at least read what I say.
Reading comprehension, people, reading comprehension.