cannabisnews.com: Federal Judge Denies Convicted Pot Guru New Trial










  Federal Judge Denies Convicted Pot Guru New Trial

Posted by CN Staff on May 16, 2003 at 16:43:14 PT
By David Kravets, AP Legal Affairs Writer 
Source: Associated Press 

A federal judge on Friday denied self-described "Guru of Ganja" Ed Rosenthal a new trial on marijuana cultivation charges amid allegations of jury bias and other claims.The decision by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer upholds Rosenthal's highly publicized conviction in February. He now faces spending the rest of his life in prison when he's sentenced June 4. The maximum sentence is 85 years.
Rosenthal, 58, says he was growing medical marijuana under a 1996 law approved by California voters, and was deputized by the city of Oakland to carry out that task. But Breyer, during the trial, prohibited Rosenthal's federal jury from hearing any evidence of that sort, and Rosenthal was painted in the jury's eyes as a major drug supplier growing thousands of marijuana plants.His prosecution underscored the federal government's position that medical marijuana is illegal, that it has no medical value and that the will of California voters has no affect on federal drug law. In a recent interview, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, however, said Rosenthal's actions were legal under state law.Rosenthal once wrote the "Ask Ed" column for High Times magazine and has written books with titles including "The Big Book of Buds" and "Ask Ed: Marijuana Law. Don't Get Busted."Breyer, in upholding his decisions to exclude his medical-marijuana defense, summed up his pretrial rulings in a 27-page opinion Friday."Since the Civil War this country has recognized that whatever the views of local governments, such views do not control the enforcement of federal law," Breyer wrote. He added that "many would question the wisdom" of prosecuting "those who furnish medical marijuana."In a telephone interview from his Oakland home, Rosenthal said he would appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and would ask Breyer to stay his sentence pending a decision from the San Francisco-based appellate court.Rosenthal, who has been critical of Breyer throughout his prosecution, said Breyer's decision "was not unexpected.""It didn't fit with his agenda," he added.After the trial, jurors said although they were not told Rosenthal was growing medical-marijuana, they suspected he was. Many said in interviews they would have acquitted had they known that Oakland city officials sanctioned Rosenthal's growing operation.Rosenthal also alleged that at least two jurors incorrectly believed they had no choice but to convict him. One juror informed the judge after the trial that she had consulted with an attorney during the trial on whether she could vote for acquittal even though the evidence clearly established Rosenthal violated federal drug manufacturing laws.That attorney told her she could not vote her conscience, or nullify the verdict. During the trial, that juror informed another juror of that conversation.Breyer wrote it was "rank speculation" that the two jurors voted to convict on the advice of the juror's attorney.George Bevan, Rosenthal's prosecutor, declined comment.The case is United States v. Rosenthal, 02-053.Editors: David Kravets has been covering state and federal courts for a decade.Source: Associated PressAuthor: David Kravets, AP Legal Affairs WriterPublished: Friday, May 16, 2003Copyright: 2003 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Sites:Green Aidhttp://www.green-aid.com/Americans For Safe Accesshttp://www.safeaccessnow.org/Ed Rosenthal's Trial Pictures & Articleshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/trialpics.htmRosenthal Faces Music in Key Marijuana Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16248.shtmlConvicted Pot Grower Jabs at Feds http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15899.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #14 posted by WolfgangWylde on May 17, 2003 at 07:22:46 PT
Dear Sweet Jesus...
...Ed, get your butt to Canada ASAP!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on May 16, 2003 at 22:15:21 PT
Just a Comment
I want to say how proud I feel to be a part of what is happening. I didn't know much about anything before I started learning on the Internet a few years back now. Since CNews started we've seen many events and many of them sad ones but this is the best news what is happening in Canada currently. I am thinking of Peter McWilliams and Tom and Rollie and they would be saying way to go if they could. We've been thru the destruction of the Towers and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've been patient and respectful of the hard times and now it is time for us to rejoice a little. It isn't over by any means but we have a real good start. Thank you!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on May 16, 2003 at 21:33:56 PT
Related Articles
 http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse1972.ramPot Laws Unconstitutional: Lawyer: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15703.shtml Pot Possession Law Challenged in Summerside Court: 
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15316.shtmlJudge Calls Marijuana Law Invalid: 
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15092.shtml
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #11 posted by FoM on May 16, 2003 at 21:24:38 PT

Thanks BGreen!
I'm watching it now! Thanks! Such good news!!!http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse1972.ramRelated Article:Pot Laws Unconstitutional: Lawyer: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread15703.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by BGreen on May 16, 2003 at 21:17:22 PT

Here it is, FoM
In a much anticipated ruling, Justice Steve Rogin has today upheld the judgment of an Ontario court judge which dismissed a marihuana possession charge against a 16 year old youth. The Jauary 2, 2003 ruling of Justice Phillips of the Ontario Court of Justice received nationwide attention in finding that there was, effectively, no longer a valid law criminalizing the possession of marihuana. The Crown immediately appealed that decision. Since that time, hundreds of marihuana possession prosecutions in Ontario have been on hold awaiting the outcome of the appeal. Marc talks to Lawyer Brian McCallister who brought the case through the courts.
Prince of Pot: Ontario Cannabis Laws Invalid?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 16, 2003 at 21:11:29 PT

puff_tuff
That sounds so GOOD! Please post the link to the video as soon as it's up if you don't mind. I'll keep my eyes out for news. I know you will also!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by puff_tuff on May 16, 2003 at 20:53:31 PT

OFF Topic, but GOOD News
FoM, no news on this yet, but Marc Emery posted this at Cannabis Culture;Although the Canadian Federal Parliament could recriminalize marijuana in the weeks/months ahead, right now, as of Friday, May 16, there is no marijuana possession law, according to a Superior Court Judge Rogin in Ontario today. In a much anticipated ruling, Justice Steve Rogin has today upheld the judgement of an Ontario court judge which dismissed a marijuana possession charge against a 16 year old youth. The January 2, 2003 ruling of Justice Phillips of the Ontario Provincial Court received nationwide attention in finding that there was, effectively, no longer a valid law criminalizing the possession of marijuana. The Crown immediately appealed that decision. Since that time, hundreds of marijuana possession prosecutions in Ontario have been on hold awaiting the outcome of the appeal. Justice Steve Rogin's decision is now binding on the courts in Ontario in which marijuana cases are normally heard. Justice Rogin's decision has effectively erased the criminal prohibition on marijuana possession from the law books in Ontario. This decision is also likely to have significant repercussions on the viability of marijuana prosecutions across Canada. Cases in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have already been placed on hold pending appeals of the dismissal of marijuana possession charges by provincial court judges in those provinces. While the decision of Justice Rogin is not binding in those or other provinces, it will have a strong persuasive effect. Because there decision has made it clear that there is no law prohibiting the simple possession of marijuana in Ontario, it is incumbent on the police in Ontario to immediately stop arresting people for posession of marijuana. Parliament may introduce legislation recriminalizing marijuana, but for the time being, any place an individual can legally smoke tobacco, they can smoke marijuana in those locations in Ontario. There is a POT-TV 'Prince of Pot' special about this new development to be put on the POT-TV.net website in the hours ahead. Edited by Marc Scott Emery (Fri May 16 2003 06:46 PM) 

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by FoM on May 16, 2003 at 20:47:19 PT

My Feelings
Sometimes I wonder about why this is happening to Ed Rosenthal. They know he is a hero to many people. Does he have any hope for fairness here anymore? Would Canada take him in if the need be? Should that even be considered? These are the questions I have.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by lag on May 16, 2003 at 20:39:42 PT

Nooooooooooo!
This is absolutely friggin disgusting. A travesty of our injustice system all too familiar these days.Ugh...I don't know if I can keep going...why is there so so much hate in this world that we have to send a truly compassionate person like Ed to jail, but a supposedly compassionate people like Bush, Rove, the rest of the current administration, are allowed to roam free and spread their hateful and fascist ideas?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by ekim on May 16, 2003 at 20:38:10 PT

States Rights’ to Medical Marijuana Act 
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) are preparing to reintroduce the States 
Rights’ to Medical Marijuana Act in Congress, and they are currently seeking co-sponsors to sign 
onto the measure when it is introduced within the next few days.This bill (HR 2592 in the last Congress) would reschedule marijuana under federal law so those 
states that wish to legalize the medical use of marijuana under state law could do so without federal 
interference. If this bill were to be approved by Congress, federal prosecution of patients who 
qualify for medical use under state law would end, and states could actually provide medical 
marijuana to patients who qualify under state law without fear of federal intervention.Please note that this bill does not endorse the use of marijuana under medical or other 
circumstances. It simply provides protection to medical marijuana patients and caregivers in states 
that have already enacted medical marijuana laws, and respects the rights of states to determine their 
own medical marijuana policies.Medical marijuana has become an increasingly popular issue among Americans in general. A recent 
Time/CNN Poll found that 80% of the American public support the medical use of marijuana.Rights to Medical Marijuana 
Act. Please contact Mark Levine on Rep. Barney Frank's staff (202-225-5931) to be listed as a 
co-sponsor.If you wish, you can send a letter to your Congressman by going to:http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=2204601&type=CO  
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by Virgil on May 16, 2003 at 19:47:49 PT

Of course there will not be a new trial
The judge new damned well there would not be a new trial and attached a reason to it. The decision was made before the justification for denial was decided. Now who would ever think that they would want the issue of jury nullification carried into the most illuminated drug trial in a long time. The misadministration wants a huge tax cut and market it as a stimulus package that will create jobs. Just like the $1.3 trillion dollar tax cut that led to the disappearance of 500,000 jobs in the last 3 months is proof that the relationship between tax cuts for the wealthy and a selling slogan are bogus, the relationship between no new trial and its justification are meaningless. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by Had Enough on May 16, 2003 at 18:30:11 PT

Off Topic: Needs a read
I found this article while using the Internet. It shows how a teacher with over 25yrs experience is being ignored. I bet she was a real good teacher and principal. I read the whole article, it said that she graduated from that same school she ended up being principal of. I see a waste of a good educator.Below is a part of the article.Ex-principal retires over drug useAdmitting that she used marijuana, former Springstead High School principal Dot Dodge has reached a settlement with the school district that spares her from disciplinary action in exchange for her agreement to retire.
The agreement, which Dodge signed Tuesday, does not specify where her marijuana usage occurred, only that she was in violation of the district's drug-free workplace policy.
Brooksville lawyer Joe Mason, who represents Dodge, said Dodge did not use marijuana on school property or while she was on duty. Still, any marijuana usage could be construed as violating the policy, Mason said.
The agreement says Dodge had also been accused of failing to fulfill an educator's obligation to protect students from harmful conditions and of failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings. Her actions led district officials to question her competency and capability of doing her job.Link to article: http://www.sptimes.com/2003/05/16/Hernando/Ex_principal_retires_.shtml

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by mayan on May 16, 2003 at 18:11:24 PT

G&M Poll Results...
The Globe and Mail poll is final. We won!The federal government is on the verge of decriminalizing marijuana. Should they go one step further and legalize it? 
 Yes - 9991 votes(52 %) 
 No - 9230 votes(48 %)http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.Page/document/polls/pollResults?id=18530&pollid=18530&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&poll=GAMFront&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by mayan on May 16, 2003 at 18:03:37 PT

"Rank Speculation"
"Rosenthal also alleged that at least two jurors incorrectly believed they had no choice but to convict him. One juror informed the judge after the trial that she had consulted with an attorney during the trial on whether she could vote for acquittal even though the evidence clearly established Rosenthal violated federal drug manufacturing laws.That attorney told her she could not vote her conscience, or nullify the verdict. During the trial, that juror informed another juror of that conversation.Breyer wrote it was "rank speculation" that the two jurors voted to convict on the advice of the juror's attorney.""Rank speculation", eh? Then why did the juror consult with an attorney on whether she could vote for acquittal? She obviously wanted to acquit!!! Breyer is full of sh*t!The way out IS the way in...Exposing NORAD's Wag The 9/11 Window Dressing Tale:
http://www.standdown.net/index.htm33 USAF Bases Were Within Range On 9/11:
http://www.standdown.net/USAFbases.htm9/11 - Guilt in High Places:
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page1&2.htmDocuments From Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/hearings/9/11 Film Draws Overflow Crowd:
http://onlinejournal.com/Media/050703Lynn/050703lynn.html9/11 Prior Knowledge/Government Involvement Archive:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment