March 24, 2009
Maui wowie: pot sentencing impacted by new federal policy
The Los Angeles Times has this interesting article, headlined "Medical pot provider's sentencing postponed," which reports on the sentencing impact of the latest federal marijuana policy development. Here are excerpts:
A federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday postponed the sentencing of man who emerged as a key figure in the national debate over medical marijuana, saying he wanted additional information about a reported change in the Justice Department's policy regarding such prosecutions. U.S. District Judge George H. Wu asked prosecutors for a written response from the Justice Department about its position on medical marijuana prosecutions in light of recent comments from Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.
Holder said last week that the Justice Department under President Obama had no plans to prosecute dispensary owners who operated within their state law. Wu said he did not believe that any change in policy would affect the conviction of Charles Lynch, 47. But the judge said he wanted to consider any new information about the policy before imposing sentence. Lynch is facing a mandatory minimum of five years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.
Assistant U.S. Atty. David Kowal told Wu he didn't think it would be appropriate for the judge to consider any change in policy as it relates to Lynch's impending sentence. But wouldn't such a change "reflect somewhat on the seriousness of the crime?" Wu asked. "I don't think so, your honor," the prosecutor replied....
Lynch's trial last summer showcased the issue of conflicting state and federal marijuana laws. Cultivating, using and selling doctor-recommended medical marijuana is allowed under some circumstances in California and a dozen other states, but federal law bans the drug altogether.
Lynch, of Morro Bay, had argued at trial that he had the blessing of the mayor and other city officials when he opened Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers in 2006. Lynch's defense attorneys wanted to present evidence that he was providing a service to seriously ill patients for whom doctors had recommended marijuana. But they were barred from doing so because the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that why someone distributes marijuana in violation of federal law is irrelevant.
Prosecutors portrayed Lynch as a cynical entrepreneur who took advantage of the state's medical marijuana law to sell about $2 million worth of the leafy drug over a roughly one-year period beginning in 2006 until his store was raided by the authorities. They accused him of carrying around a backpack stuffed with cash, like a common drug dealer.
Some recent related posts:
- Medical marijuana fans now feeling they can exhale and inhale
- "Time For Marijuana Legalization?"
- Terrific commentary and assessment of the war on drugs
- More calls for an end to the drug war and legalization of marijuana
March 24, 2009 at 10:25 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Maui wowie: pot sentencing impacted by new federal policy:
"Prosecutors portrayed Lynch as a cynical entrepreneur who took advantage of the state's medical marijuana law . . . . They accused him of carrying around a backpack stuffed with cash, like a common drug dealer."
If this is describing the Government's trial theory, then it seems a bit lacking in evenhandedness to bar Lynch from presenting his theory that "he was providing a service to seriously ill patients for whom doctors had recommended marijuana." If the Government is not bound by a "just the facts, ma'am" view of the elements of the crime, then how can the defendant be?
Posted by: Good for the gander? | Mar 24, 2009 10:37:18 AM
Wow! the change in policy doesn't have a bearing on the seriousness of the crime! Since they were treating Med MJ people the same as other MJ dealers and now they are not going to prosecute them at all, this position by the us attorney is hogwash. The need to protect the public from further distribution of Med MJ is also, I suppose, unaffected. The DOJ needs to tell their footsoldiers to actually read 3553(a). They are still so married the guidelines that they dont even understand what a 3553(a) analysis is.
Posted by: KRG | Mar 24, 2009 12:39:34 PM
Hello, Onload of page my antivirus put alert, check pls. Tania
Posted by: Tania | May 29, 2009 4:35:17 AM