cannabisnews.com: Chicoan Arrested in Attempt To Sway Jury Chicoan Arrested in Attempt To Sway Jury Posted by CN Staff on June 27, 2002 at 15:25:18 PT By Terry Vau Dell - Staff Writer Source: Chico Enterprise-Record A Chico man was arrested briefly Monday after supporters passed out leaflets to members of the federal jury that was to hear his marijuana cultivation trial. Some of the demonstrators said they were attempting to inform the jury that the judge had disallowed Bryan Epis a medical marijuana defense. "This was our way of leveling the playing field," said "Medical Mike" Nelson of Paradise, who took part in Monday's protest outside the Federal Courthouse on I Street. Concerned it had been tainted, U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. released the jury panel and ordered jury selection to begin anew today with a fresh panel. Epis was eventually freed, but the judge requested the U.S. Attorney's Office investigate Monday's incident to determine whether the 35-year-old Chicoan should face additional obstruction of justice charges for allegedly attempting to "influence the jury." Epis' attorney, Tony J. Serra, denied the Chico defendant had anything to do with leafleting the jury. Monday's court demonstration epitomizes the growing tension between the advocates of California's Proposition 215, allowing medical use of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation and officers who enforce a current federal ban on pot for any purpose. The Epis case reportedly would be the first federal criminal prosecution involving a cannabis buyer's club to go before a jury in California. It stems from a June 25, 1997, Butte County sheriff's bust of an alleged large indoor marijuana growing operation at Epis' Chico residence on West Frances Willard Avenue - located about a block from Chico High School. Epis is accused in the federal case with conspiring to manufacture at least 1,000 pot plants, which carries a mandatory 10-year prison term, and manufacturing 100 plants, which carries a mandatory five-year sentence. According to Nelson, who is a member of the Butte Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Chico, fliers were sent out to proponents asking them to "peacefully" protest the denial of a medical marijuana defense at Epis' trial Monday. He confirmed that 13 people identifying themselves as perspective jurors in the case were given a single-page handout outside the federal courthouse. The document contained a first-person account by Epis of the "facts" surrounding his arrest, and informs the jury they are not obligated to follow the law as given to them by the court. In the written statement, Epis is quoted as saying that after checking with two attorneys as to his legal rights, he decided to start a cannabis buyer's club in Chico called the "Medical Marijuana Caregivers." Epis, who says he takes marijuana for back and neck pain resulting from a near-fatal traffic collision, contends he had the right to dispense medical marijuana to other "seriously ill patients" with a doctor's recommendation . The jury handout Monday claims that when it was busted, the Chico "dispensary" was selling marijuana at less than half the price of most cannabis buyer's clubs. "I never profited from medical cannabis and provided it to seriously ill patients with a doctor's recommendation," the written statement adds. Epis told the Enterprise-Record he'd put the information in the flier on his personal Web page and suggested that people come down and protest, but did not authorize its use in fliers. He said he neither prepared the fliers nor knew they'd been handed out to prospective jurors. "I can't stop someone from exercising their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest," he added. The flier given to perspective members of Epis' jury Monday, also alleges judges rarely tell jurors of their right "to judge the law itself and vote on the verdict according to your conscience." Though he claimed he didn't know until Monday that it is unlawful to petition a criminal jury, Nelson vowed to protest again outside the courthouse when Epis' trial resumes today. "I think we'll get arrested this time," the Paradise man predicted.Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA)Author: Terry Vau Dell - Staff WriterPublished: June 26, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Media News GroupContact: letters chicoer.comWebsite: http://www.chicoer.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmJurors in Medical Marijuana Case To Be Shieldedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13241.shtmlJury is Chosen in Testy Pot Trialhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13240.shtmlJudge Tosses Out Pot-Case Panelhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13220.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #13 posted by observer on June 27, 2002 at 22:51:49 PT remember FIJA ! Remember FIJA! They have leaflets you can print up and pass out or place in public areas: http://www.FIJA.orgThe flier given to perspective members of Epis' jury Monday, also alleges judges rarely tell jurors of their right "to judge the law itself and vote on the verdict according to your conscience."Oh it "alleges" that, does it? Of course judges don't tell juries they can acquit people simply because they (members of the jury) do not like the law. Jurors have that right.(By the way, thanks to the newspaper for letting on that jurors may "judge the law itself and vote on the verdict according to your conscience." ... that was worth 10,000 leaflets!)The flier given to perspective members of Epis' jury Monday, also alleges judges rarely tell jurors of their right "to judge the law itself and vote on the verdict according to your conscience."''... once selected for jury duty, nobody will inform you of your power to judge both law and fact. In fact, the judge's instructions to the jury may be to the contrary. Another quote from US vs Dougherty (cited earlier): "The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and approval of its existence as a necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power". http://www.fija.org/juror-handbook.htm - - -Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction . . . if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong. -- Alexander Hamilton, 1804If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then the juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty. -- Justice Theophilus Parsons, 1788It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court. -- John Adams, 1771 [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by ed howling on June 27, 2002 at 20:49:41 PT: where is the states defense Since when has the dea become docters? Why are we left to defend ourselves? Since a majority of the people of california have passed a law that allows the use of medical marijuana, this needs to be a case between the state of california and the federal goverment. All the leafletters need to be outside of and in the state attorney generals office tommorrow demanding that they defend ALL medical marijuana cases. Everyone of these cases should be a state vs. federal case. What ever happened to the rights of the voters? [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Zero_G on June 27, 2002 at 18:48:25 PT State Constitution of the State of California Article 3, Section 3.5 of the California constitution specifically prohibits state officials from refusing to enforce a state law on the basis that federal law or regulations prohibit its enforcement, unless a state appellate court rules otherwise. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIASEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power: (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional; (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional; (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Lehder on June 27, 2002 at 18:06:09 PT maybe i wasn't clear Local authorities must arrest DEA agents who interfere with the legal activity of the community's citizens. These DEA agents and any other federal interlopers must be prosecuted. TO many sick people, it's a matter of life or death; to the feds it's a matter of money and plush offices, booze, hookers and expense accounts. Sooner or later we'll see such an arrest somewhere. The government has demonstrated that nothing else will stop it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by releafer on June 27, 2002 at 18:05:56 PT FREE TO DO............................ "YOU ARE FREE TO DO WHAT THEY TELL YOU" !!!Bill Hicks 1992 [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Lehder on June 27, 2002 at 17:58:49 PT we need more robust law enforcement It should be clear to one and all by now that the federal government cannot be influenced with law or reason. It's persecutions of legal medical marijuana patients and their dispensaries will not end peacefully.It makes no difference even if the defendant should be found not guilty. The government will find something else to prosecute him for, and it will prosecute the next dispensary and its operators on exactly the same charges - at public expense.If this case were to go to the Supreme Court and if the defendant were to prevail there, then the federal government would prosecute the next guy on exactly the same charges. You are not protected by the Supreme Court or any other court even when they rule in the defendant's favor: you will face the same charges despite all previous rulings, everyone must start from scratch and must be able to afford the time and expense of going all the way.This is blatant abuse of federal power. It's persecution and it's treason; it's illegal under international law too.It will end when local authorities decide to enforce their laws, when city and county police are instructed to arrest federal violators, and DA's become willing to prosecute federal invaders and safeguard the citizens who pay them. That's what it's going to take. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by mayan on June 27, 2002 at 17:44:25 PT John Entwistle Passes Away... This is a sad day. Long live the music of The Who!Who Bassist Entwistle Dies: http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20020627_482.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by mayan on June 27, 2002 at 17:33:14 PT Jurors Rights The flier given to perspective members of Epis' jury Monday, also alleges judges rarely tell jurors of their right "to judge the law itself and vote on the verdict according to your conscience."Someone has to inform the jurors of their rights if the judges won't. It is our duty to oppose unjust laws!unrelated -Pacifica Radio blows 9-11 coverage! http://onlinejournal.com/Media/Ramares062202/ramares062202.htmlSeptember 11: Federal Government Interfering with Civil Litigation - http://www.sierratimes.com/02/06/25/arny062502.htmWritten Transcript - "9-11 and the Public Safety" Press Conference Seeking Answers and Accountability: http://unansweredquestions.org/transcript.php"Bush Let 9/11 Happen" Says Gulf War Veteran: http://bushoccupation.com/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by The GCW on June 27, 2002 at 17:29:59 PT Is this related? LEAHY SAYS BUSH SEEKS DEPARTMENT 'ABOVE THE LAW' WASHINGTON - U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee ( news - web sites ) Chairman Patrick Leahy charged on Wednesday that the Bush administration was effectively asking Congress to put its proposed department to combat terrorism "above the law." Leahy told Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge that to win swift congressional approval of the department -- designed to guard against another Sept. 11-like attack -- the administration must revise or drop provisions that would exempt the operation from a number of legal requirements. Pubdate: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 Source: Reuters (Wire) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1177/a04.html?397 [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Lehder on June 27, 2002 at 17:27:21 PT come again, Sir? What the fuck is a "perspective juror"?You can be sure that the government has selected its perspective jurors from among the most ignorant and ill informed people ever to be encountered. It's pitiful that they even have to be informed about jury nullification or medical defense etc. Well, that's what they learn in the government's public schools: how to piss in a cup, how to sit down and shut up, how to do what they're told, how to be perspective jurors. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Zero_G on June 27, 2002 at 16:18:37 PT ooops are the criteria. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Zero_G on June 27, 2002 at 16:17:07 PT paul 1)The feds only think they can bust for DISTRIBUTION, AND OR POSSESSION OF SUCH A GREAT QUANTITY THAT COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE IS "PRESUMED", etc., If this statement is true (and I really am trying to sort it out) then how do we interpret the conspiracy charges? What is the criteria necessary to convict on conspiracy alone?Or, as George Carlin once put it, "[...]wake up in the morning thinking about going downtown and commiting a mortal sin. Relax, you already did..." [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by paul peterson on June 27, 2002 at 15:53:12 PT: MEDICAL NECESSITY DEFENSE/JURY NULLIFICATION Please keep in mind two things, people, 1)The feds only think they can bust for DISTRIBUTION, AND OR POSSESSION OF SUCH A GREAT QUANTITY THAT COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE IS "PRESUMED", etc., (this guy is not being prosecuted for the mere medical possession of cannabis!-I get really mad when it appears that some newspaper guy is making it seem to all the readers that medical marijuana is DEAD OR SOMETHING!). The feds, in fact, are on a losing streak. They are having a harder and harder time convincing people that ALL CANNABIS USE IS ABUSIVE, THAT PEOPLE SHOULD STILL BE HERDED INTO FENCED ENCLOSURES, THAT THEY DESERVE TO BE SEPARATED FROM FAMILY & FRIENDS MERELY BECAUSE OF A WEED, and that this Jury Nullification thing will go away.It is brave and of course, non-self protected (s-e-l-f-l-e-s-s)individuals like in Chico that make these trends come to the fore, and make changes in our society, and thank you guys out there! Secondly: 2) this jury nullification right was here, in our country BEFORE WE WERE EVEN A COUNTRY, first case: JOHN PETER ZENGER! He got busted for talking back to a BRITISH APPOINTED GOVERNOR, NAMED BILL COSBY, what a cad! King George, no, not the shrub, charged him under the ANTISEDATIOUS LIBEL laws, and the "philidelphia lawyer" argued that the colonist jury should merely nullify the law- THEY DID, Ben Franklin printed the story in his POOR RICHARD'S ALMANACK, the founding fathers put these rights (Speech, political speech, press, religion) INTO THAT FIRST AMENDMENT because of JOHN! That was before our own GOVERNMENT became so despotic so as to seek totalitarian rule, that was when American citizens knew what freedom cost, that was when they valued it, and of course, the King George they loved to hate lived a good few time zones away, over yonder, hey, just like today!The cries and shouts from that crowd of CITIZENS can be heard all the way in Chicago, and yet they echo truly farther back in time than most judges can or want to remember! How can a judge refuse to let the jury know that this guy faces 10 YEARS MINIMUM AT TRIAL? Because he has been promised a rung up the ladder, to replace those 9th Circuit judges that Bush would love to "shrub" if I have learned to use this word in context- I'm using it as a verb, is it? Or worse? PAUL PETERSON 312-558-9999 [ Post Comment ] Post Comment