home

Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 11:05:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

From Law Prof Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy: The 8th Circuit upholds a sentence of 8-plus years for two ounces of pot:

I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves which judges on the Eighth Circuit seem to have their judgment clouded by the wicked weed in US v. Chauncey, No. 04-1529 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2005) (available here (pdf)). The defendant in Chauncey, as a result of a criminal history leading to his classification as a career offender, received a sentence of 100 months after being convicted of possessing with intent to distribute less than two ounces of marijuana. According to Judge Lay's dissent, "Chauncey's undisputed purpose was to help [his friend] obtain marijuana to alleviate the painful effects of her multiple sclerosis."

Go read the rest.

< Fox Anchor Wrongly Labels House a "Terrorist Lair" | Protest is OK >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit | 24 comments (24 topical)
    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#1)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    Set the legalistic arguments aside for a moment and examine the gravity of this offense from a moral perspective. In that light, any fair-minded person can see the imbalance on the scales of justice in this case. To my mind this is the very antithesis of justice, it is in fact barbarism. In the larger picture, the affirmation of this conviction will lead to an undermining of public confidence in US jurisprudence and the entire legal system. You'd expect these kinds of decisions coming from an appellate court in the 1950s or the 1960s, but this is the 21st century. We seem to be moving backwards in this country. When Robert Lee Chauncey was arrested, he cooperated with the police and told the truth. Unfortunately it seems that his honesty and forthright behavior had no bearing on his sentencing whatsoever. In fact it seemed to work against him and help consolidate the the prosecution's case under the letter of the law. Do we really want to see individuals who are apprehended with a few ounces of marijuana shooting it out with the police because they don't want to spend the next decade in prison. That will be the likely consequence of these types of decisions.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    2 ounces does not an intent to distribute make, unless this guy is a high school kid.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    What kind of people are these judges that our society has produced, that they are able to so thoroughly detach themselves emotionally from the horror they have handed this man with this sentence? The jaw drops in astonishment at the terror of the implications... There is real sociopathic (almost psychopathic) behavior here... not in the intent to distribute 2 ounces of a relatively harmless plant... but in men in robes willing and able to find and use legal justifications to do this to a man. Is the detachment they have now so comlete that they've lost their ability to see the defendant as a human being? This is the kind of behavior we expect of terrorists... If their defence is that there hands were forced by previous legal decisions then we are all sick...

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#4)
    by TomK on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    It's time to start really getting the word out about jury nullification. If I am ever on a jury of a drug crime, I will not vote guilty. No matter what. I do not trust the government's prosecutors, and I believe the drug laws are racist (in original intent post jim crom) and corporatist (in that they protect pharmecuetical profits) and will never vote to uphold them. I would suggest that the growing momentum in the blogosphere would indicate this is a good time to make others aware of their right to nullify while sitting on juries. An excellent place to start would be reaching the prospective jurors in the cases against the utah rave kids who were arrested for swat teams for dancing.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    Excuse me while I go throw up now...

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#6)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    Do we really want to see individuals who are apprehended with a few ounces of marijuana shooting it out with the police because they don't want to spend the next decade in prison. That will be the likely consequence of these types of decisions.
    Aaron has hit the nail right on the head. That's how they turn the ordinary person into a criminal. They understand the statistics of who is most likely to have some pot. Poor folks, black folks, and college folks. They think by making the act of breaking such a rediculous law look way worse than it is by sentencing, the rest of the country will agree. And apparently it worked. But if they can completely overdo it with the sentence, they can create a hardcore criminal. It's what happens, whether it's their intentions or not. They define the labels of career criminal, they create the path to career criminal, and they give you a little nudge towards that path.
    It's time to start really getting the word out about jury nullification.
    Once again, nail on the head. If we as the peers dont convict, then we can really make a statement as to which laws we as a people really think are valid. For the people and by the people, right? Well we have to take the powers that we already have and manipulate them so that it really is by the people.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#7)
    by jackl2400 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    What kind of people are these judges that our society has produced, that they are able to so thoroughly detach themselves emotionally from the horror they have handed this man with this sentence? The jaw drops in astonishment at the terror of the implications...
    Over the past 30 years, with my own eyes, I have seen the corrosive effects of our Draconian drug laws on the Federal bench. Think about it a minute. What moral person would take a federal court job nowadays knowing that it would compel him/her to be a mindless automaton puppet meting out these barbaric sentences devised by shallow ideologue pols like Senselessbrenner and Souder? Those new appointments, unlike the other lifetime appointed judges who have resigned or spoken out over the drug laws, do not have the excuse that "the job has changed". With the unusual levels of dissent and outrage from the bench, bar and ABA, who would go into that situation willingly? I think we all know the answer. Heartless tools. (At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law) someday these "jurists" will be regarded the same way we look at judges during the Third Reich, as ciphers in black robes subverting justice while appearing to be legitimate.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#8)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    TomK, you'll have to hope that the prosecutor doesn't winnow you out of the jury selection process for your giving an honest answer regarding the questions you'll be asked. Questions like "Do you believe people should be jailed for marijuana?". You will immediately be 'culled' from the jury for having such 'impure' thoughts; ever since Kriho prosecutors have been taking extra care in making sure those who oppose the drug war don't sit on juries. Especially those citizens who are aware of their Constitutional right to judge the law, i.e. the very same 'jury nullification' mentioned. And needless to say, it's been tested in case law. I know of at least one anecdotal instance where, during a marijuana trial, the Defense asked the arresting officer on the stand to read a passage from the book "Marijuana Law" (which had been taken as evidence of the defendant's 'criminal intent'; given what happend next, they almost certainly wished they hadn't swalled such a 'poison pill') which contained a paragraph detailing the case of US vs. Moylan which enshrined in case law the jury's right of nullification. The cop froze up and wouldn't talk, so the Defense read the passage instead. The jury acquitted. The judge and prosecutor could only sit and fume. But, in the main, it would seem that knowledge of the law can be as personally damning to the hapless citizen who seeks to carry out the grand tradition of the Founders as much as ignorance of it is.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#9)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    But, in the main, it would seem that knowledge of the law can be as personally damning to the hapless citizen who seeks to carry out the grand tradition of the Founders as much as ignorance of it is.
    So SeeEmDee, seems that the best way to beat the system is to act like the ignorant schmuck that they want us to be.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    Peace-I think you may have mis-stated a point:
    They understand the statistics of who is most likely to have some pot. Poor folks, black folks, and college folks.
    It is not that they are more likely to have illegal drugs, it is more likely that they are the ones who are most likely to be arrested and convicted for having those drugs.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#11)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    which contained a paragraph detailing the case of US vs. Moylan which enshrined in case law the jury's right of nullification.
    Aight SeeEmDee, I researched this case, but am not up to par on my legal mumbo jumbo. Does this decision mean that it is under the court's discretion of whether they want to inform the jury of jury nullification?

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#12)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    It is not that they are more likely to have illegal drugs, it is more likely that they are the ones who are most likely to be arrested and convicted for having those drugs.
    I stand corrected, but that's who they're tyring to keep down...Some more than others. You can guess which.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#13)
    by txpublicdefender on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    There is plenty of reason to lash out at the judges here. Don't the prosecutors and grand jurors who charged the guy in the first place need to be taken to the shed? Why was a person being charged in federal court for 2 oz. of marijuana anyway?

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#14)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    I Dunno, something about this...
    recommending Chauncy be sentenced as a career offender pursuant to USGG 1B1.1,due to his prior convictions for distribution of marijuana and involuntary manslaughter
    and this,
    Chauncy's criminal history report also included three prior convictions for driving while under the influence, a conviction for failure to appear, a revocation of probation in 2002 "[d]ue to a plethora of noncompliance," and commision of the instant offense within two years following his most recent release from custody.
    and this
    "Chauncey's undisputed purpose was to help [his friend] obtain marijuana to alleviate the painful effects of her multiple sclerosis."
    He admits to distribution right there. Anyway, txpublicdefender, does bring up a good point as to why this case is in federal court anyway. I assumed it occurred on exclusive federal jurisdiction, but that's just a guess. It does seem to be rather minimal to have federal prosecution if the state had concurrent jurisdition.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    Chauncy's criminal history report also included three prior convictions for driving while under the influence, a conviction for failure to appear, a revocation of probation in 2002 "[d]ue to a plethora of noncompliance," and commision of the instant offense within two years following his most recent release from custody.
    Has being designated a "habitual offender" now become justification to punish people repeatedly for prior offences... for which they presumably have paid a debt to society?

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#16)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    Peace: I must first state that I am not a lawyer, but have done a lot of research into the matter of 'jury nullification'. According to US vs. Manning the judge in any case is under no compunctions to advise the jury of their rights to nullify. This has led to the mistaken belief, deliberately fosterd by intellectually dishonest judges, that the jury has none. Demands by the judge that the jury only follow his guidance and not judge the law for themselves - as US vs. Moylan so clearly states they may - is direct contravention of case law...and would rightly be called criminal obstruction. The problem is that so many jurors are pathetically ignorant of this stunningly powerful weapon against judicial railroading of their own rights as citizens. A weapon that many prosecutors and judges are understandably terrified of. For an entire edifice of political power and unwarranted privilege favoring both judges and prosecutors has been built upon this practice of keeping the citizens deaf and blind regarding that right to nullify. As you can tell just from the researches you no doubt have begun yourself, as in the case of Laura Kriho, they pull out all the stops to try to 'make an example' of any citizens who dare to exercise that right. A good primer of sorts regarding the entire issue can be found here: Juror's Handbook; A Citizen's Guide to Jury Duty

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#17)
    by jackl2400 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:47 PM EST
    This new report of the Justice Policy Institute released this week on the drug war's focus on marijuana and incarceration seems apt:
    NEW REPORT: Arrest Rates Having Little Impact on Marijuana Use UNITED STATES SPENDS NEARLY 300 TIMES WHAT IT DID 35 YEARS AGO ON DRUG CONTROL AND LOCKS UP MORE PEOPLE FOR MARIJUANA THAN THE INDIVIDUAL PRISON POPULATIONS OF 8 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Washington, DC—According to a new report from the Justice Policy Institute, data shows little relationship between growing arrest rates for marijuana offenses and the drug’s use rate, despite it surpassing heroin and cocaine as leading category of drug arrest since the mid-1990s. In Efficacy and Impact: The Criminal Justice Response to Marijuana Policy in the United States, the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) measured the effectiveness and consequences of national drug control policies that have resulted in the U.S. spending 300 times what it did 35 years ago on drug control. Criminal justice responses to marijuana - including law enforcement, judicial and corrections-accounted for $5.1 billion in 2000, according to Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron. Despite this increase in spending on drug control from $65 million to currently $19 billion, and the imprisonment of 30,000 people for a marijuana offense, marijuana usage has remained relatively unchanged regardless of arrest rates going up or down.
    Full report (*.pdf) with some outstandingly scary graphs (warning: graphic content, not for the faint of heart or Patrick ;-) here and state-based fact sheets and such here.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    Jacki- Those numbers are good for the WOD industry. They can now argue for huge increases in their budget. Winning the WOD would be an economic catastrophe for a major sector of our economy. Just like winning the WOT would put a lot of people, besides the terrorists, out of business.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#19)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    Squeaky, I beg to differ; those statistics are poison pills for the drug war. The economy is contracting daily. The war on drugs is itself dependent upon the health of the economy. Only an economy that has a surplus beyond what it needs to continue can afford a drug war. Already, on local and state levels, cuts are being made in anti-drug programs like DARE. It is now 'guns or butter' time, and the hard decisions regarding what will be funded and what won't be are being made very close to home. It's only a matter of time before this process makes it's way to up the national level, and the long delayed debate about why we should continue the drug war will be forced onto the public's awareness. I would hazard a guess that when the public fully realizes how much has been spent these last 20-25 years on it, they'll be outraged...especially if they are unemployed and desperate. Joe Sixpack may not give a tinker's d**n about the lost civil liberties caused by the drug war, but when his wallet makes sucking sounds from the vacuum in it being displaced by air each time he opens it, and he realizes the equivalent of his annual salary is being used to lock up a pothead, and if he had to pay that himself he'd be even more destitute, then he'll get mad enough to call for an end to it.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#20)
    by jackl2400 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    CMD sez:
    It's only a matter of time before this process makes it's way to up the national level, and the long delayed debate about why we should continue the drug war will be forced onto the public's awareness.
    Oh, I think the issue's already on the national political radar screen, with Bushco proposing to cut or zero out the federal programs for the High Intensity Drug Trafficing Area ("HIDTA") programs and block grants to hire more cops. It seems those programs simply can't be afforded anymore and have attracted a lot of criticism, because of (1) the misdirection of LEO effort to pot suppression rather than serious crime and (2) the pork-laden HIDTA program which originally was supposed to go after key smuggling areas like Miami and the Mexican border region but, just like the Homeland Security pork debacle, led to silliness like naming South Dakota a HIDTA. See, e.g., this article from the 8/19/05 NY Times. At the same time, and perhaps as evidence that there are serious cracks in the drug-fighters' coalition, all the piggies are upset about the proposed cuts while hawks like Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) fight with ONDCP chief John Walters about the admin's dogged pursuit of pot and prescription painkillers while supposedly ignoring the drug threat flavor du jure, meth. Being a reformer means you're perpetually pessimistic about making progress against the dead weight of the status quo, but watching these clowns fight with each other instead of us for a change brings a smile to my face.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#21)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    Racism was mentioned in these discussions, and I think there's a valid argument there because it appears that the defendants in this case were Native Americans.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#22)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    Also perhaps this came under federal jurisdiction because the crimes occurred on reservation land?

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#23)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    SeeEmDee Thanks for bringing up jury nullification and the seventh amendment. Of the numerous times I've been called up for jury duty, in my letter to the judge I always include my awareness of jury nullification, and my intention to inform my fellow jurors of the power that they possess. "As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and unreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..." (US vs Dougherty)." I'd like to think this scares the average judge. To date I've always been released from jury duty without being questioned. Of course I also go into my journalistic experience with regard to law enforcement cases I've written about and investigated. One case I like to mention specifically was a Haitian doctor in South Florida who was convicted of drug trafficking, sentenced to 50 years and subsequently sent to prison after he was busted by the local cops for selling oxycodone and hydrocodone prescriptions. Eventually his case was overturned on appeal soon after a couple of local investigative journalists revealed that the police were specifically targeting less sophisticated immigrant doctors while they avoided going after wealthier more influential white doctors who were basically doing the same thing, just showing a little more tact in their methods. When the county and the state started looking at the prospect of facing a civil rights lawsuit, all of a sudden they became very cooperative. Up to that point the state had been completely intransigent when it came to the possibility of reducing the sentence or re-examining the facts surrounding the case, their position being that they wanted to make an example of someone since this practice was so rampant. These days they're little more careful about who they slap with drug trafficking charges.

    Re: Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit (none / 0) (#24)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:53 PM EST
    Actually, Aaron, it was TomK who brought it up; I merely amplified on it. And yes, I would not only concur with the racial aspect of the DrugWar, but would go one step further and state that is in fact the core issue of the origin of the laws themselves. To buttress this, I would invite those who might be doubtful of this claim to read the writings of those who politicked for the laws early last century for a clue as to their prejudices and their intent: Black Fiends White Hope One can only hope that those most affected by the laws realize that the source of the laws came from the same kind of mindset that tended towards white hoods, lynchings and burning crosses, and demand a change politically.

    Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit | 24 comments (24 topical)