cannabisnews.com: CNN Transcripts: Connie Chung Tonight CNN Transcripts: Connie Chung Tonight Posted by CN Staff on February 06, 2003 at 21:48:24 PT Partial Transcripts: Ed Rosenthal & Jurors Source: CNN.com ANNOUNCER: Next, he was growing pot to ease the pain -- legally. Now he's going to jail on drug charges.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)ED ROSENTHAL, MEDICAL MARIJUANA ADVOCATE: For the first time in my life I find myself questioning the court system and how the letter of the law can circumvent the intent of the law.(END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: The jury that convicted him says they were duped, when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)CHUNG: There are no do-overs in legal cases. But some jurors who served on one California case are now wishing there were. Here's what happened. Ed Rosenthal was convicted by a federal jury in California of growing marijuana. Now some of the very jurors who found him guilty are now hoping his case is overturned on appeal. They were never told that Rosenthal was working on a state-sponsored program. While the program is legal in California, it is illegal under federal law. But Rosenthal, who will be sentenced in June, has plenty of supporters. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)CHUNG (voice-over): For a man facing 85 years in prison, Ed Rosenthal isn't ashamed what was he did.(CHANTING)ROSENTHAL: When I was convicted, I had no regrets. I take responsibility for my actions.CHUNG: A jury found Rosenthal guilty of three federal counts of conspiracy and cultivation of marijuana. But the jury never knew that Rosenthal was growing grass for medical use. He was officially part of a perfectly legal program in Oakland, California. Why didn't the jury know? The judge would not allow his defense lawyers to tell the jurors that what he was doing was legal under state law, even though it was illegal under federal law. Minutes after the verdict was announced, jurors were shocked to discover they were not told the full story.PAMELA KLARKOWSKI, JUROR: I think had we been notified or given that information, that Ed had been deputized by the city of Oakland to grow marijuana specific for medical needs, there's no way we could have convicted him.ROBERT EYE, ED ROSENTHAL'S ATTORNEY: We're going to work extremely hard to keep Mr. Rosenthal from going to jail...CHUNG: Rosenthal's attorney accuses the feds of trying to make an example of his client, hoping to shut down California's medicinal marijuana program.EYE: I really do believe that this case will probably profoundly affect how these kinds of cases are going to be litigated in the future, particularly in the context of a federal court.CHUNG: And how does Rosenthal feel about the jurors who found him guilty?ROSENTHAL: I knew that moments after the jury came back with the decision or within days, that they would have regrets once they got the full information. They're not to be blamed. The blame goes to the government.(END VIDEOTAPE)CHUNG: And joining us now, two of the jurors who convicted Ed Rosenthal, Marny Craig and Charles Sackett. Thank you both for being with us. CHARLES SACKETT, JURY FOREMAN: You're welcome.MARNY CRAIG, JUROR: Thank you, Connie.CHUNG: Marny, I know that the prosecution presented its case five days, and then the defense presented its case for only two hours. You went into deliberations. And was there any doubt in your mind that Rosenthal was guilty?CRAIG: I had serious doubts. But to tell you the truth, I didn't know what I was really doubting because we had gotten so little information from the defense because of the way the trial was run. We went into the deliberations with only half of the evidence. So while many of us on the jury were sitting there with serious doubts, we never voiced them to any extent.CHUNG: I understand. And just a few minutes later, you came out of that courthouse, and what did you discover?CRAIG: We discovered that we had convicted a man who was not a criminal. We discovered that we had convicted someone who was just trying to help sick people get through their day. And we discovered who Ed Rosenthal was, and what he was really doing. All of that information was kept from us in that courtroom. The defense was never allowed to get in anything about medical marijuana, about the books that Ed Rosenthal had written, about Proposition 215, although obviously we live in California, we supported Proposition 215, and we supported medical marijuana...CHUNG: The proposition that allows marijuana to be used for medical reasons for cancer patients and the like?CRAIG: Yes.CHUNG: Charles, when you found out that Ed Rosenthal in fact was legally growing marijuana, as far as state law was concerned, what did you think?SACKETT: I wonder how in the heck does a government think any of that information is irrelevant? CHUNG: Charles, did this make you angry? SACKETT: This made me angry beyond belief. I'm not sure I've ever been so angry in my life. To the point that by the time I got out into the public, I didn't care if I got into trouble or not. I really do not know about contempt of court. And at first, I just wanted so raise a few eyebrows. When I was asked, what is your opinion about this case, and I said, "I hope he appeals and wins." I figured that would open up a few eyebrows, raise a few. CHUNG: Marny, who is the culprit here? CRAIG: I think the culprit is the system. I think the culprit is the federal government. And the whole court system, the prosecution, the DEA, they're all the culprits. It was a huge well- planned scheme to get Ed Rosenthal because of who he is and what he represents. And I think that the federal government is going to realize that this is not the way to handle this situation. The federal government is going to have to acknowledge the medical marijuana issue and do something about it. CHUNG: Marny, what should happen to Ed Rosenthal? He's facing 85 years in prison. CRAIG: Ed Rosenthal should have a new trial, a fair trial in which all of the evidence is presented a trial in which the jurors are informed of their rights. One of the real problems here was that we didn't know we had any options. We thought our only choice was to follow the judge's instructions and not consider anything that was not presented as evidence in the courtroom. And follow his instructions with regard to the federal law. And we didn't know that we had the right to do otherwise. And so we didn't. SACKETT: Connie, I'd love that image of lady justice, the one who's blindfolded and carrying the scale on one side. The prosecution was able to put all of its evidence. On the other side, the defense was able to put absolutely none. Or virtually none. And we were asked to then judge that. And I feel embarrassed, humiliated, and can you imagine being able to sleep at night knowing that your name was at the bottom of that document? CHUNG: Marny Craig and Charles Sackett, thank you so much for being with us. Joining us now, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey, I don't get it. I really don't. Why did the federal government prosecute? JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This is a big difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. The Clinton administration really let a lot of these medical experiments, medical marijuana experiments, proceed. Attorney General Ashcroft has said from the very beginning in Oregon, in California, this is against federal law, you proceed at your own risk, and now he's starting to prosecute. CHUNG: So a person such as Ed Rosenthal should have known and should have -- as soon as the John Ashcroft took over as attorney general, he should have backed out of his job? TOOBIN: Well, he should have known. It is against federal law to possess marijuana. And there's an important issue here. Judge Briar, the judge in the trial here, the reason he didn't allow this in evidence was that this is not an intent crime. It doesn't matter what your intent is under the law, to possess marijuana. If you possess it, you're guilty. It's like speeding. If you speed, you're guilty. If you possess marijuana, you're guilty. It doesn't matter if you have good intentions. That's his ruling. And I think under the law, that's true. CHUNG: That's correct? I mean did the judge did the right thing? TOOBIN: As far as I understand it, I think the judge did the right thing. The issue here is not so much the judge, it's the prosecutors. It's bringing a case like this is an invitation to sort of tell the state of California to go to hell. And your laws don't matter, federal government matters. But under the law, they have the right to do it. CHUNG: There are other states that make the use of marijuana for medical reasons legal. TOOBIN: And one of the reasons they bring cases like this, the Justice Department does, is to tell everyone in those states, you want to go ahead with those marijuana experiments? You're looking at going to jail too. I mean, it's a specific philosophy of this Justice Department. And we're seeing the effects of it now. CHUNG: And in the last 15 seconds. Does this happen often in which the state is in conflict with the federal government when it comes to law? TOOBIN: Sometimes it does. Often in environmental areas, in regulatory areas. In criminal law, it's very unusual. But it does happen. When it does, the federal government's rules control. No legal doubt about that. CHUNG: So, bottom line, this man could go to prison for 85 years? TOOBIN: Absolutely. As far as I can tell, based on this case. It's a sad case, but under the law, I don't think Judge Briar had much of a choice. CHUNG: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you. Snipped: Complete Transcripts: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/06/cct.00.htmlSource: CNN (US Web) Show: CNN Connie Chung TonightShow Date: February 06, 2003Copyright: 2003 Cable News Network, Inc. Website: http://www.cnn.com/ Contact: cnn.feedback cnn.comDL: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/connie.chung.tonight/Related Articles & Web Sites:Green-Aid.comhttp://www.green-aid.com Ed Rosenthal's Trial Pictures & Articleshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/trialpics.htmCNN Transcripts: NewsNight with Aaron Brownhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15403.shtmlMedical Marijuana: Blind Injusticehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15395.shtmlA War Against The Peoplehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15394.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #16 posted by malleus2 on February 08, 2003 at 03:07:57 PT Celephais, there'll probably be a few And those largely either because the defense is incompetent or lazy.Because a clear signal has been sent to the California judiciary...and the rest of American jurisprudence:Because of this case, the cat is out of the bag. Increasingly, juries will become apprised of their nullification rights...and make use of them. All because of the immediate fallout from this case.When the Rosenthal case jurors found out that they were, indeed, trying an MMJ case that *should never have made it to the court because (as far as they were concerned) the issue was decided at the voting booth*, they were angered.But when they found out about their right of nullification had been deliberately hidden from them by Breyer, they were *furious*.This is more than just an MMJ lawsuit, people: judges have tried to keep the lid on nullification for decades, using exactly the same illegal intimidation tactics that Breyer used.But now, not only has the MMJ issue been brought squarely before the public courtesy of media attention - which the antis have tried for years to prevent. Now, because of the publicity this has garnered, more people will research their nullification rights...*and make use of them*. Fed courts are going to become a wasteland as far as the prosecution goes. Not only that, but consider: how much was spent by the feds in killing Peter McWilliams and chasing down the Kubby's, Steve Tuck, Rene Boje and all the others? That's money the states can't afford to blow, now. In the past, the cost could be 'justified' due to the *conviction rate*. But what do you think will happen when the conviction rates start to plummet, due to nullification? The expense cannot be justified if they fail to win a conviction. It really is that simple.Breyer and all the other antis have made a very big goof, here. They thought they could do 'business as usual' and they instead opened a can of worms. Somebody pass them some ketchup; they'll need it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by FoM on February 07, 2003 at 14:11:36 PT Video: Connie Chung Interview http://drugpolicycentral.com/real/dpfca/chung.rm [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Celephais on February 07, 2003 at 12:03:59 PT: Cannabis prosecution in California You think its possible that there won't be another federal cannabis possession conviction in California because jurors would be too afraid of convicting a Prop. 215 advocate? Even if the person isn't affiliated with Prop. 215 [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Nuevo Mexican on February 07, 2003 at 10:41:56 PT Take the poll! People are speaking out against bush and getting freeped for it: http://www.vote.com Ed will be a free man, you can count on it! [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Truth on February 07, 2003 at 09:51:44 PT Check it out. JUDGE BREYER EXPOSED In 1968 Charles Breyer, then a 26-year-old assistant district attorney in San Francisco, wrote in a Harvard College alumni publication, "I am fearlessly prosecuting flower children and other insidious threats to our way of life." Today Breyer, 61, a bow-tie-wearing U.S. Judge, is still in the business of sending flower children to prison, [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by malleus2 on February 07, 2003 at 09:02:55 PT Oh, man, go to DEAWatch and read!!!!!!!! http://members.aol.com/deawatch/daily.htmNothing about Rosenthal (of course; they'd rather have their fingernails pulled out than admit they've wasted so much time and money on this and they only have pissed off the whole state of California for their pains).But they are running scared for their jobs!Look at this:05 Feb 2003, 21:27 PST, 7th EditionI think we shudda voted for Al Gore, con't:Some people are Chicken Little's... they see the sky falling when it is not. Some people are schizoid optimists... they see blue skies when chunks of it are falling down and cratering their heads. And some people are realists... the see the world for what is and they either work harder to make things right... or they get off.With the exception of the typical "let's blame the Democrats for all our troubles" crap, I agree with the 20:41 writer when he or she says, "Stay out of the bars, watch the G-cars, close out your CS files/open cases, and reduce your OPR exposure at DEA.". But that should be SOP at all times.Let's face facts... Bottomline, none of what the writer says has a darn thing to do with the OMB report. Cleaning up your room isn't going to keep you from getting a spanking for ditching school.Bush has been in office over two years and the Bushies are still blaming the Democrats for all of our misery. TC has been gone for almost four years and the Bushies are still blaming TC. The reality is we stay in a rut because the Bushies refuse to take responsibility for their failures. The terrorists didn't nuke our Twin Towers while Clinton was president nor when Daschel was Majority Leader. George Bush was president and Trent Lott was Majority Leader. The OMB didn't say we were a sorry-a** organization while Bill Clinton was president and Tom Daschel was ML. This reality happened when the Republicans are in total control. Okay, so we are a bunch of flakey fingerpointers who refuse to accept the fact that because we aren't doing our job the fault must be with the previous political party in power. Maybe some of us should realize that it may be because we're so psychotic about not accepting responsibility that is preventing DEA from performing better...This will NOT pass, as the writer prays it will. Our "poor performance" grade wasn't written by some third assistant working under a $1,000 grant from a congressional subcommittee. Our grade was leveled by the Office of Management and Budget!!! You know, the folks who tell the president and congress where money is being wasted and greater investment is out of the question! We are in deep doo-doo... and the sooner we accept this fact the sooner we will either turn DEA around or find another job before we are forced to lateral to another agency we may no want to work for.Comment... And... After reading The Watch tonight I picked up the phone and called a friend whom I know works closely with editor. I told him that I read the stuff in The Watch and also the NY Times report. He just grunted. I then asked him what he thought, given the fact that it was obvious someone was predicting the same stuff in DEA Watch over the past couple of months that came out in OMB report yesterday. He said to me, I called my boss at The Watch and asked him the same questions. (Now, read this carefully)I was told that if I couldn't arrest a drug dealer by the time the flag came down tomorrow I should arrest my mother just so that DEA could get a stat on the books. It's that grim, I asked. Yep, he said, it's that f**king grim.Normally, hearing pigs squeal is irritating. But this is sheer music. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by darwin on February 07, 2003 at 08:24:03 PT Mark Fiore I love these Mark Fiore cartoons. Thanks for turning me on to them. Here's another relevant one. http://www.markfiore.com/animation/protect.htmlAs for CNN, it was great to see them actually cover the topic of Ed Rosenthal, even if they gave the last word to an oily looking "legal expert". I'm also excited for the upcoming Jesse Ventura program on MSNBC. Finally, a news show for the non republicrats. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by malleus2 on February 07, 2003 at 07:26:09 PT Thank YOU, Mayan... I haven't been here long, but I have taken the liberty of checking those links out that you have provided in the past, and they have always been eye openers. The last link you gave was one.This is why 'antis' hate the Internet so much; the truth can't be bottled up in one nasty little group's conspiracy anymore. The Word, however truncated, gets out. It may be tinted funny, it gets a little battered and dogeared, and antis of all stripes try to cover it in a pile of perfumed manure, but The Straight Word usually manages to surface.But as Voxfux pointed out, it depends upon sticking The Word under somebody's nose or between the Boob Tube and their eyes (when all they've ever had was propaganda courtesy of said Tube and the Daily A**wipe that passes for newspapers now) before they catch on they've been suckered and *why*. Just like the Rosenthal jurors did. They're *pissed off* that they were tricked into doing something they would *never* have done normally. It was the ONLY way the feds could get a conviction, and it's backfired. Now *all* cases of like content will become as welcome in fed courts as an amnesiac leper with no bell. Fed judges will groan when they see them in their dockets. The sweet (for them) days of easy convictions have passed. Now, the feds will have to fight for each and every conviction. And like lazy bullies that have succeeded in terrorizing their neighborhood, they thought they could continue to do so forever. They've gotten flabby having everything their own way.But the situation has changed. The feds have gained nothing but a Pyrhhic victory. They won the case...and lost public opinion forever in California. And Toobin's blather aside, many previously ininterested people in America are scratching their heads right now about why this happened at all; wasn't there a law there that allowed it? Why are the feds doing this to this guy who was helping people? What's going on? The average Joe and Josette in the street now knows what happened. Previously he couldn't have given a damn. But now they know Uncle doesn't play fair in the courts. The feds have proven themselves liars and cheats in their claims of fairness. If they'll lie about this...then what *else* has been going on behind Joe and Josette Sixpax's back? Dangerous questions to rattle around in the minds of recently awakened sheep...Dangerous questions to have them asking on the eve of the greatest political, social, and military mistake the US could ever possibly make, when solidarity of purpose and support is being asked (no, demanded!) of the American people...Dangerous questions, indeed... [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by kanabys on February 07, 2003 at 07:25:26 PT The feds are desparate The feds knew that they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell if they told the 'truth', so they withheld everything that would hurt thier case. This is deceit at its finest. The wall is definitely crumbling :) [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by mayan on February 07, 2003 at 06:42:14 PT malleus2... That site's hilarious! Thanks for the link! Here's another one from Fiore's site you may not have seen... Medical Pot-Shots: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/medpot.htmlHere's an unrelated but interesting piece...Columbia tragedy to get two investigations; 9/11 attacks still awaiting one: http://onlinejournal.com/Editor_sDesk/editor_sdesk.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by malleus2 on February 07, 2003 at 06:12:32 PT Unrelated? You decide... Mark Fiore's latest animation zapping AshKKKroft and John "Pee"'s Drug war:http://www.markfiore.com/animation/drugs.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by malleus2 on February 07, 2003 at 06:09:56 PT Unrelated? You decide... Mark Fiore's latest zap on AshKKKrofts' and John "Pee"'s Drug War:http://www.markfiore.com/animation/drugs.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by mayan on February 07, 2003 at 05:07:18 PT delariand... you are so right! Remember when Bush and Asscrotch first got appointed and said they would respect state's rights? BWAAHAHAAHAAAHAHA!!!!! This Toobin a**hole seems to have forgotten that! Here's what he somehow remembers..."Attorney General Ashcroft has said from the very beginning in Oregon, in California, this is against federal law, you proceed at your own risk, and now he's starting to prosecute."These dolts have absolutely no regard for the Constitution of the United States of America, which specifically states...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.Wouldn't one assume that CNN's legal analyst would have knowledge of his own Constitution? Sheesh!!!The way out is the way in -"MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT" 9/11 WAS AN "INSIDE JOB"(The Lost voxnyc article that the federales shut down!) http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:dv2JBpTIZHUC:www.voxnyc.com/archives/00000076.htm+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by The GCW on February 07, 2003 at 04:41:43 PT A good one. Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics: 29 have been accused of spousal abuse 7 have been arrested for fraud 19 have been accused of writing bad checks 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses 3 have done time for assault 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges 8 have been arrested for shoplifting 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year Can you guess which organization this is? Give up yet? It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line. You gotta pass this one on. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Toad on February 07, 2003 at 01:45:49 PT Typical Big American Media After presenting some ordinary folks who say that our drug laws are crazy, they bring in an "expert" who says that our legal system did the right thing and our laws are just. You would think with the advent of many cable channels there would be some alternative views out there, Phil Donahue who is the only Peace/Pot fellow on the tube is getting canned because his ratings are low. The War propaganda is so overwhelming that no alternative to the invasion and slaughter is even disscused. But the U.S does really know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, because we have the receipts. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by delariand on February 06, 2003 at 22:10:37 PT Liar! TOOBIN: Sometimes it does. Often in environmental areas, in regulatory areas. In criminal law, it's very unusual. But it does happen. When it does, the federal government's rules control. No legal doubt about that. Lies! Lies lies lies! Read the constitution before you open your mouth on network television! These so-called "analysts" are just mouthpieces for the government's propaganda. How can they say federal law usurps state law when the document this country was founded on, yes that would be the Constituion of the United States of America, specifically states otherwise?Our founding fathers are turning in their graves... [ Post Comment ] Post Comment