GROWER OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
IS CONVICTED ON FEDERAL CHARGES
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 31 -- A federal jury today found the author of marijuana books and advice columns, Ed Rosenthal, guilty of marijuana cultivation and conspiracy. Under mandatory sentencing laws, Mr. Rosenthal faces a minimum of five years in prison.
Mr. Rosenthal, 58, who admitted to growing the plants for distribution under California's medicinal marijuana law, known as Proposition 215, called the verdict a "terrible decision" and vowed to fight it. His lawyers said they would prepare motions for a new trial immediately.
"What the federal government is trying to do is destroy Prop 215 and eliminate medical marijuana from California," Mr. Rosenthal said. Proposition 215 "will outlive the Bush administration, it will outlive Ashcroft and it will outlive all of these cruel people who want to stop people from getting their medicine."
The law, passed by voters as an initiative in 1996, permits the cultivation of marijuana as medicine for seriously ill people. Mr. Rosenthal was growing starter plants in a warehouse in Oakland, in his capacity as an "officer of the city" under Oakland's medical marijuana ordinance. The plants were distributed to organizations and clubs that serve the seriously ill.
Besides California, eight other states allow the sick and dying to smoke or grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.
But the judge in the Rosenthal case, Charles R. Breyer of United States District Court, did not allow Mr. Rosenthal to raise the California law as a defense since Mr. Rosenthal was indicted under federal law. Federal law does not permit marijuana cultivation for medicinal purposes.
As a result, Mr. Rosenthal did not take the stand in his own defense and his lawyers said they were unable to explain to the jury his motive for growing the plants.
"Ed, for doing the right thing, is paying a terrible price," Robert V. Eye, one of Mr. Rosenthal's lawyers, who fought back tears during a news conference after the verdict. "Social change is never easy."
The jury foreman, Charles Sackett, 51, a landscape contractor in Sebastopol, Calif., said the jury was largely sympathetic to Mr. Rosenthal's predicament. But, Mr. Sackett said, jurors were left with "no legal wiggle room" because of the decision to exclude any discussion of Proposition 215.
"It was one of the most difficult things we ever did as jurors," Mr. Sackett said of separating the state and federal aspects of the case. "We followed the letter of the law. We followed the court's instructions."
Mr. Sackett said that he had voted for Proposition 215 and that he hoped Mr. Rosenthal would ultimately prevail in a higher court.
"I am for the use of medical marijuana, as a number of jurors were," he said. "But we just couldn't base our decision on that."
George L. Bevan Jr., the assistant United States attorney, asked that Mr. Rosenthal be taken into custody immediately, but Judge Breyer said he would make a decision about custody at a hearing on Tuesday. Mr. Rosenthal has been free since his arrest last February after posting $200,000 bond. The judge is scheduled to sentence Mr. Rosenthal in June.
Under the original indictment, Mr. Rosenthal had faced a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison if convicted, but the jury effectively cut that amount in half when it rejected the prosecution's contention that Mr. Rosenthal had conspired to grow more than 1,000 plants. The jury reduced the number to 100. Mr. Rosenthal's lawyers had argued that since the plants he had grown were starters, not fully grown plants, that the count involving 1,000 plants was excessive.
Statement of Ed Rosenthal
on the Medical Marijuana Trial Verdict
January 31, 2003
"I am disappointed in this verdict for several reasons.
"This was an unconstitutional prosecution. It should never have come to trial.
"Once it did, I was not afforded a jury of my peers. They had to bring in 80 people to come up with 12 who would agree to set aside their beliefs on this issue.
"Even so, they would have acquitted me if they had been permitted to hear my story. But I did not get the chance in this trial to defend myself and explain my actions.
"Federal prosecutors made extraordinary efforts to block the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Because the truth is that I was deputized by the City of Oakland to legally grow marijuana for medicinal use by sick or dying patients under California's Prop 215, the Compassionate Use Act, the law that is supposed to guarantee safe and legal access to medicinal marijuana.
"The City of Oakland showed courage in working to come up with a safe, open, and legal system to harmonize California's medical marijuana law with federal law. And I was acting as an official of the city, implementing their program to help patients.
"Had the jury known about the City's attempts to give immunity to their people, including me, it would have acquitted me today.
"The other victims of today's decision are patients - people who are extremely ill or dying and who are soothed by medicinal marijuana - because I am only one of many people that they are trying to put in jail for helping sick people, as allowed under our laws.
"For these reasons, we will be asking for a new trial. This verdict will not be allowed to stand.
"The federal government silenced my courtroom defense, but it can't silence the court of public opinion. The opinion of the American public is one of overwhelming support of medicinal uses of marijuana.
"The federal government needs to get this message.
"My case clearly demonstrates that it is time for a national debate on the issue of medical marijuana. California voted to make medical marijuana legal, but the federal government is trying to block that law. The federal government is choosing to prosecute and imprison individuals instead of working directly with the State of California and local cities to resolve the conflicts in medical marijuana law.
"Our elected officials must have the courage to discuss this issue publicly, and then resolve this conflict.
"Because helping sick people should never be a crime.
"For my entire family, thank you all for your support."
-- Ed Rosenthal
Ed Rosenthal and wife after the verdict by a deceived jury
US: OPED: A Marijuana Crusader Defends His Healing Mission
Pubdate: Fri, 21 Feb 2003
Source: Forward (US)
Copyright: 2003 Forward
Contact: letters@forward.com.
Website: http://www.forward.com/
Author: Ed Rosenthal
Note: Ed Rosenthal, a columnist, is the author and editor of more than a
dozen books. He is currently awaiting sentencing following his conviction
on three felony charges for his participation in implementing California's
medical marijuana program.
A MARIJUANA CRUSADER
DEFENDS HIS HEALING MISSION
There is no doubt among knowledgeable physicians and researchers that marijuana is a medicine. It has proven anti-spasmodic, analgesic and anti-nausea properties, and has an incredible safety record. There are no recorded deaths from its use and overindulgence results in drowsiness and a sound sleep.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, where I live, we have an especially high percentage of HIV/AIDS cases. Three of my own neighbors have died from this disease. Although there was interest in marijuana as a medicine for glaucoma and other conditions before the epidemic, it was marijuana's unique qualities in relieving AIDS symptoms that first attracted patients to it. It allowed them to take their drug cocktail and still lead regular lives. Tens of thousands of victims of HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and cancer therapy find marijuana to be the only medicine that relieves pain and nausea without drugging them into semi-consciousness.
The federal government, though, contends that there is no such thing as "medical marijuana." It closed the doors to new applicants for its Federal Compassionate Use Program, which dispenses government-approved marijuana, when floods of applications came in from HIV/AIDS patients. When nongovernmental compassion programs began to form and states approached the issue, the federal government and its drug agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, claimed that medical cannabis was just a ruse, and that medical providers who distributed marijuana were merely sophisticated street dealers.
There are several reasons why the federal government opposes legalization. They revolve around politics and ideology rather than science and experience. First and foremost, though, it is an issue of jobs.
Just a few facts bring this into perspective. Seven percent of the total criminal justice system expenditures are spent jailing marijuana users. Total government expenditures on marijuana law enforcement are $15 billion a year. In 2002, there were 735,000 arrests on marijuana charges, and 88% of those arrests were for simple possession. Today there are 100,000 prisoners serving time for marijuana convictions. Think of the number of police officers, judges, lawyers and prison guards -- not to mention prison construction firms and other providers of basic prison services -- who are employed through marijuana's criminalization.
It is apparent by any measure that the marijuana laws are more harmful to society and to the individual than the behavior they are attempting to regulate. Yet the federal government views any legalization of marijuana, even for sick people, as a threat to its prohibition -- in which it has a vested interest. No matter that medicinal and recreational use are separate issues, just as they are with opiates and other drugs -- official rhetoric about the issue of marijuana suggests that the general populace is unable to make such a distinction.
In actuality, the DEA and federal officials are the ones who are unwilling to make this distinction. Acknowledging that marijuana has any medicinal use undermines the DEA's categorization of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, a category that is reserved for highly addictive drugs with no safe medicinal applications. If the medicinal value of marijuana were acknowledged, marijuana would have to be placed in a less restrictive category -- such as Schedule 2, along with morphine, cocaine and methamphetamines. The government claims that acknowledging the medicinal value of marijuana would weaken marijuana laws as a whole.
The Bible also has quite a few laws. Most of them are admonitions against sins of commission. We learn about people who commit these sins all the time in the news: robbers, murderers, liars and other miscreants. These are the easy laws. They are clear-cut. Don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness, don't stray into adultery. All of these commandments have something in common: There is a victim who is hurt by the transgression.
I was faced with a different kind of dilemma -- that of committing a sin of omission -- when the Oakland City Council appointed me an officer in 1998, thereby authorizing me to provide medical marijuana to patients and to induct other people into that service. I had skills in plant-growing techniques that few others had, and knew that my training could be used to alleviate pain and suffering.
Yet I hesitated out of fear of government retribution, even though as a city officer I was assured of my immunity from prosecution. Ultimately, I decided to pitch in and, I believe, made great efforts to alleviate pain and suffering.
The federal government obviously thought otherwise. A year ago, agents of the DEA, FBI and Internal Revenue Service raided my garden and arrested me. I was charged with marijuana cultivation, conspiracy and maintaining a place where the marijuana was grown. I now face up to 25 years in jail, although the judge has implied that he plans to grant me a minimal sentence. I was released on a $200,000 property bond on $500,000 bail. No matter the outcome of my sentencing, I don't regret helping the sick. My conscience is clear.
In pre-trial motions, the judge ruled that a literal reading of the federal law, which Oakland cited when conferring immunity, was in fact a misinterpretation. At trial, I was not allowed to disclose to the jury that I was an officer of Oakland, that the marijuana was distributed for medical purposes or that I had been led to believe that what I was doing was legal.
Even more tragic for our democracy, both prosecutor and judge ordered the jurors to choose law over justice, lies over truth. But most disturbing of all is that both the prosecutor and judge want to close dispensaries altogether, forcing patients who rely on medical marijuana back to the black market. They don't seem to care about the 30,000 patients' health or quality of life. They treat the ill as criminals. Ultimately, they will have to deal with their sins of commission.
US CA: Web: Rosenthal Asks for New Trial, Cites Juror
Pubdate: Fri, 04 Apr 2003
Source: The Week Online with DRCNet (US Web)
Contact: psmith@drcnet.org
Website: http://www.drcnet.org/
Author: Phillip S. Smith, Editor
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Ed+Rosenthal
ROSENTHAL ASKS FOR NEW TRIAL, CITES JUROR VIOLATIONS
California medical marijuana provider and growing guru Ed Rosenthal, facing a minimum of 10 years in prison after being convicted of violating federal marijuana laws, was in court this week asking for a new trial. Attorneys for Rosenthal asked federal Judge Charles Breyer to grant a retrial after two jurors came forward to say they had sought outside legal advice during the trial.
A majority of the jurors who convicted Rosenthal have since repudiated their verdicts, stating publicly that they would not have convicted him had they known his operation was legal under California's medical marijuana law and sanctioned by the city of Oakland. Among them were the two jurors who testified Monday that they had sought an opinion from an outside attorney on whether they could vote their conscience on the case.
Juror Pamela Klarkowski testified that she and fellow juror Marney Craig discussed whether jurors could vote to override the law. "We were traveling north and Marney said, 'Do jurors always have to follow the law? Don't they ever have the opportunity to make a decision based on conscience?'"
The two then agreed to hear the opinion of an unnamed attorney who was a friend of Craig's, Klarkowski testified. He told them to "do as we had been instructed, do as we had been told," said Klarkowski. "Given instructions from the judge and all the evidence from prosecution, which was pretty tidy, I felt that was it, I didn't have much choice."
Craig's testimony was cut short when she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination out of concerns Judge Breyer would hold her in contempt for violating his order not to discuss the case with outsiders. That resulted in what Rosenthal's wife, Jane Klein, described as a "legal scholars' delight," as Breyer, Rosenthal attorney Dennis Riordan, and federal prosecutor George Bevan wrangled over the question of immunity for Craig.
"Marney Craig was intimidated," Klein told DRCNet. "She was worried she could be prosecuted and her attorney is asking for immunity in exchange for her testimony. She doesn't want to reveal the name of her attorney friend, and she doesn't want to be cited for contempt of court. Usually the government grants immunity, but here it has no interest in doing so. Judge Breyer wondered aloud whether, since Marney was a juror of the court, whether he had any right or obligation to grant her immunity," she said. "We continue to break new legal ground."
Calling the two jurors' actions "a classic example" of jury misconduct, Riordan said the outside legal advice tainted the juror's deliberations. "Even if she [Klarkowski] had never talked to the other juror, that could be sufficient grounds for mistrial."
Golden Gate Law School Dean Peter Keane told the San Francisco Examiner Riordan's theory could be right. "If you have something that comes into the jury room from outside, such as an outside legal interpretation or a jury member going to a crime scene to see evidence that was not presented, that is jury misconduct," Keane said.
We'll see if Judge Breyer agrees. He is not expected to rule on the motion until next week. Meanwhile, said Klein, "Ed is doing really well, considering. He feels very positive, he knows he has done nothing wrong, and he believes that his case has widened the cast of players on this issue."
That is true. Not only have the reverberations from the Rosenthal case shaken some California politicians, notably Attorney General Bill Lockyer, from their noncommittal stances toward the state's medical marijuana law, but it has also generated coverage of the medical marijuana issue in the national mass media. Still, until this or some other appeal works, Ed Rosenthal will appear for sentencing in June and report to federal prison soon after.
Visit http://www.green-aid.com for more information on the Rosenthal defense fund or to contribute.
Judge Breyer will sentence Ed Rosenthal on June 4. The man with the benevolent green thumb faces at least five and as many as 85 years in federal prison.
US CA: Convicted Pot Grower Jabs At Feds
Pubdate: Mon, 07 Apr 2003
Source: Press Democrat, The (CA)
Copyright: 2003 The Press Democrat
Contact: letters@pressdemo.com
Website: http://www.pressdemo.com/
Author: Guy Kovner
Related: please visit http://www.green-aid.com/ for updates from activists
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Ed+Rosenthal
CONVICTED POT GROWER JABS AT FEDS
Sonoma County Judge Offers Support At Sebastopol Fund-Raiser For Rosenthal
SEBASTOPOL -- Laws against marijuana are "on their way out," pot author, advocate and convicted cultivator Ed Rosenthal told a sympathetic crowd of about 80 people at a fund-raiser Sunday night in Sebastopol.
Sonoma County Judge Elliot Daum spoke in support of Rosenthal at the event, along with two doctors who advocate the medicinal use of marijuana. Taking public stands on political issues is unusual among local jurists.
"I found, quite frankly, the prosecution of Ed Rosenthal to be obscene," said Daum, the first public defender ever elected judge in Sonoma County.
"I wish Ed luck in the future with this," he added later.
Daum took personal credit for returning marijuana to local users who were found to be using the drug in keeping with an agreement between pot advocates and the county District Attorney's Office.
Rosenthal, wearing a black shirt with green marijuana leaves, railed against President Bush's religious beliefs, the war in Iraq, and the slumping economy -- sometimes pounding the lectern -- before addressing the case that has made him an international celebrity.
Rosenthal, 58, an Oakland book publisher who is married and has two children, faces up to 40 years in prison on federal pot cultivation charges.
His case has become the crux of a legal and political debate over the conflict between California's Proposition 215, the medicinal pot measure approved by voters in 1996, and federal law, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2001, which does not recognize marijuana as medicine.
Seven Sonoma County men who, like Rosenthal, were growing marijuana for medicinal use have been arrested, charged or sentenced in federal prosecutions.
Five jurors in Rosenthal's case, including jury foreman Charles Sackett of Sebastopol, issued a public apology a week after they convicted him on Jan. 31 and demanded the judge grant him a new trial.
Rosenthal's lawyers filed a motion last week alleging juror misconduct as grounds for a new trial. That motion will be considered Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, whom Rosenthal lampooned Sunday night despite warnings that Breyer probably will be the sentencing judge.
"With Breyer as judge, it was sort of redundant to have a prosecutor," Rosenthal told the crowd at the Sebastopol Veterans Memorial Building.
In a joking mood, Rosenthal disputed doctors' contentions that no serious negative side effects have been documented from the medicinal use of pot. "Marijuana does cause hysteria in people opposed to its use," he said.
The event was a "joint benefit," fliers said, for Rosenthal's legal defense fund, called Green Aid, and the Town Hall Coalition, an Occidental-based environmental group.
Rosenthal, who is free on $500,000 bail, said his legal expenses already exceed $200,000, although his lawyers are not pressing him for payment.
Toben Dilworth, program manager of the coalition, said the group, which normally focuses on land-use issues, decided to sponsor Rosenthal's appearance out of concern for government "assaults on civil liberties."
The medical pot issue became "personal," Dilworth said, when coalition members found marijuana helpful in enduring chemotherapy treatments for cancer.
