Ed Rosenthal medical marijuana case continues

Medical Cannabis Service Providers

Add Entry

Main Menu

Login

Monday, 01 December 2008 05:42

NINTH CIRCUIT TO HEAR APPEAL IN U.S. v. ROSENTHAL
Panel To Be Asked to Decide Whether Court Denied Medical Marijuana Grower's Constitutional Right to Present a Complete Defense

U.S. v. Rosenthal, a case that epitomizes the clash between state and federal marijuana laws, has taken many turns in its six-year history.
In 2003, medical marijuana advocate Ed Rosenthal was convicted for growing and distributing marijuana even though he was encouraged to do so by Oakland City officials as part of the city's efforts to promote safe distribution of marijuana to patients. After the Ninth Circuit overturned his conviction in 2006, Rosenthal was retried and convicted in a second trial that Rosenthal's appellate brief describes as "little more than a long, drawn out directed verdict."
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hear Rosenthal's second appeal this January (date to be announced). The fundamental issue in Rosenthal's appeal is the right of defendants to present a complete and effective defense in cases where there is a conflict between state and federal law. If his conviction is allowed to stand, it could have a chilling effect on local officials and others whenever there is a risk that an overzealous federal prosecutor will attempt to criminalize their efforts to promote controversial state and local initiatives.
Among the specific questions that Michael Clough, Rosenthal's lead attorney, will ask the appellate panel to decide are:
(1) Whether the jury should have been allowed to hear evidence that Rosenthal acted on good faith belief that he had been deputized by the City of Oakland.
(2) Whether, given the complex and unsettled nature of constitutional precedents governing differences in federal and state laws with regard to issues such as medical marijuana, Rosenthal should have been allowed to present a defense based on mistake of law.
(3) Whether Rosenthal should have been allowed to offer testimony by Oakland City officials to negate the allegation that he was involved in an unlawful conspiracy.
(4) Whether the trial judge, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer, denied Rosenthal's constitutional right to testify in his own defense when he ruled that Rosenthal could testify but not be allowed to present witnesses to corroborate his claim that he believed he was lawfully acting to further regulations enacted by the Oakland City council to ensure the safe distribution of marijuana to lawful patients.
This case carries even more relevance in light of the November 2008 elections. The confrontation between state laws and Washington D.C. was elevated by recent passage of medical marijuana legislation in Michigan. Michigan, a populous Midwest state, became the 13th state to legalize medical marijuana when its citzens voted overwhelmingly to protect medical marijuana users. In addition, the state of Massachusetts voted to decriminalize marijuana. Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project said the efforts in Michigan and in Massachusetts demonstrate a "sea change" in public attitudes.
Both initiatives won by a wider margin than did President-Elect Obama. In Michigan, 10% more people voted for marijuana than for Obama, proving that marijuana is more popular than politicians (which is why they hate it). There were a total of 9 pro-marijuana initiatives on the ballot in the last state and local election. All of them passed.

-END-
More about U.S. vs. Ed Rosenthal here

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email this

Comments (0) Add Comment