Jurors Fight Back Against the War on Medical Marijuana
Further proof that railroading medical marijuana defendants in federal court has consequences:
Two jurors who convicted two Modesto men of running a criminal enterprise in connection with a medical marijuana dispensary want the defendants to get a new trial.
Jurors Craig Will of Twain Hart and Larry Silva of Tollhouse say they wouldn't have found the men guilty had they known the penalty was 20 years to life in prison.
They said a story in the San Francisco Chronicle about medical marijuana led them to believe the crimes weren't that serious.
Ricardo Ruiz Montes and Luke Scarmazzo are scheduled for sentencing Sept. 15 in U.S. District Court in Fresno. Their attorneys also will argue a motion for a new trial. [San Francisco Chronicle]
It is just an inescapable reality that these medical marijuana show trials infuriate jurors and provoke bad press. After suffering multiple humiliations in their years-long crusade against Ed Rosenthal, you’d think federal prosecutors would have cut this charade out already:
5 years after his arrest, Rosenthal was given a 1-day sentence, time served. That’s what happens when federal prosecutors turn the law into a political weapon, perverting justice to the point that they themselves become the enemy in the eyes of the jury. First Rosenthal’s jurors lobbied for leniency, until one eventually confessed to misconduct and provoked a retrial.
That’s what you get when the drug war divorces itself from public morality. The American people don’t believe in criminalizing medical marijuana providers and they cannot be counted upon to cooperate cheerfully with political prosecutions. If anyone’s been wondering why the DEA doesn’t go ahead and try to take down every dispensary in California, well, now you know.
Two jurors who convicted two Modesto men of running a criminal enterprise in connection with a medical marijuana dispensary want the defendants to get a new trial.
Jurors Craig Will of Twain Hart and Larry Silva of Tollhouse say they wouldn't have found the men guilty had they known the penalty was 20 years to life in prison.
They said a story in the San Francisco Chronicle about medical marijuana led them to believe the crimes weren't that serious.
Ricardo Ruiz Montes and Luke Scarmazzo are scheduled for sentencing Sept. 15 in U.S. District Court in Fresno. Their attorneys also will argue a motion for a new trial. [San Francisco Chronicle]
It is just an inescapable reality that these medical marijuana show trials infuriate jurors and provoke bad press. After suffering multiple humiliations in their years-long crusade against Ed Rosenthal, you’d think federal prosecutors would have cut this charade out already:
Rosenthal was convicted of violating federal drug laws, but seven of the 12 jurors said afterward that their verdict would have been different if they had been allowed to consider evidence about the medical use of the marijuana and Rosenthal's status as an agent in the Oakland program. They requested leniency for Rosenthal.
…
Last April [2006], the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a 3-0 ruling that Rosenthal was entitled to a new trial because one of the jurors improperly sought outside advice about the case. [San Francisco Chronicle]
5 years after his arrest, Rosenthal was given a 1-day sentence, time served. That’s what happens when federal prosecutors turn the law into a political weapon, perverting justice to the point that they themselves become the enemy in the eyes of the jury. First Rosenthal’s jurors lobbied for leniency, until one eventually confessed to misconduct and provoked a retrial.
That’s what you get when the drug war divorces itself from public morality. The American people don’t believe in criminalizing medical marijuana providers and they cannot be counted upon to cooperate cheerfully with political prosecutions. If anyone’s been wondering why the DEA doesn’t go ahead and try to take down every dispensary in California, well, now you know.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
What a sham
20 years to life, that is just plain old stupid, the jurors are correct and their certainly should be a new trial. It makes a mokery of violent crime !
Wake up people
Herb is not the problem
come on police stop the war love the people
one love people
AMERICA MARIJUANA POLICE RIGHTS LOVE TRUTH
LETS GET TOGETER AND IT WILL BE ALL RIGHT WOW!
TONYMIA@AOL
NEVER GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS
TIME 4 CHANGE POLICE NEED TO CHANGE
PLEASE NEVER GIVE IN OR GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS
NO SEARCH
FREEDOM
THE TIME IS NOW 4 CHANGE
AMERICA COME TOGETHER LOVE ONE ANOTHER TONYMIA@AOL
PEACE 2 U AND NO MORE MARIJUANA ARRESTS
EVER
LETS GET NAMES OF ALL THESE BAD COPS AND GOVERMENT PEOPLE
SEND NAMES AND WHAT THEY DID 2 DRCNET
EVERYONE DO YOUR PART MOVE FOWARD
PLEASE MAKE EVERYDAY COUNT SHARE LOVE
CHALLENGE YOURSELF AND ANYONE WHO IS WRONE
TIME 4 CHANGE
I can't wait until I get called for jury duty again!
The first and only time I was called for jury duty, I was overseas in the Army. Needless to say, I couldn't make it to court that day! However, having been railroaded by the system myself, that defendant would have been thankful to have me on the jury. It's called JURY NULLIFICATION, and it's one of the few tools "we, the people" have left in our arsenal to combat corrupt prosecutors and judges. Remember that, folks: JURY NULLIFICATION! Google it, read about it, do whatever you have to do to learn about it, then, USE IT!!!
Jury Nullification
Yes we as jurors have the constitutional right to find a defendant not guilty based not only on the fact presented in the trial (the judge will tell you this) but also on the fairness of the law and how the law was applied according to your conscience and a juror can not be punished for his vote (the judge won't tell you this).
But it is important to know that judges and prosecutors hate this right and will disqualify you from the jury.If you really want to excercise your rights on the jury, don't mention jury nullification.
Re: Jury Nullification
The one thing that a judge or prosecutor will never, EVER, tell a jury is, "If you think this prosecution under existing law is wrong, you don't have to convict."
It is called, "Jury Nullification" and under US law, as I understand it, if the whole jury believes that the LAW is wrong in the instance of a particular prosecution, they don't have to convict. I call it, "Freedom from malicious prosecution." It is that last bastion of a Free People, left to them against an oppresive government, before we pick up our weapons and fullfill the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Which any real student thereof will tell you that it is perfectly legal for Private Citizens to take up arms against an "oppresive govt."
Rudy McGillvray
Ketchikan, AK
Ignorance is a crime
The prosecutors need to be prosecuted!!!!!!!!!!
Kwame D. Binta I
Railroad job kangaroo court
What could be more despicable than a travesty in which the "whole truth" is deemed irrelevant, and the federal law in question is a damned lie in violation of its own criteria?
Rickard Steeb, San Jose California
every lying prosecuter
in america should be drug out from every courthouse in america .and hung from the tallest tree in that town .then their lying carcusus drug through the streets .then tossed in garbage where they belong .wtf
Post new comment