Medical MJ Sellers Face 20 Year Minimums

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:29:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

No matter who wins the next presidential election, the heavy hand of justice needs to be lightened considerably when it comes to federal prosecutions of marijuana providers.

Luke Scarmazzo and Ricardo Ruiz Montes ... were convicted of manufacturing marijuana and distributing the drug, as well as operating a continuing criminal enterprise, a felony that carries a mandatory 20-year minimum prison term, with the possibility of life behind bars.

The "continuing criminal enterprise" was the operation of a marijuana dispensary in California. Whether Scarmazzo and Montes complied with the state's medical marijuana law is in dispute, but there should be no dispute that a 20 year mandatory minimum for selling marijuana is outrageous. Just ask the jury.

Jurors deliberated for two days before delivering their verdict. One juror, Craig Will of Tuolumne County, said after the verdict that he expected the two men to get probation or a few months in prison. "I'm really appalled to discover that there's a 20-year mandatory minimum on the continuing criminal enterprise charge," he said.

If the judicial system really trusted juries to act as the democratic institution that the founders intended, juries would be told of the consequences of a conviction before deciding on a verdict. Selling a plant to people who have a medical need for it (or to anyone, for that matter) just isn't conduct that merits a 20 year sentence. The next president should (and if it's a Democrat, probably will) put an end to federal prosecutions that contravene state laws permitting the sale of medical marijuana.

< Kentucky Hosts NRA Convention This Weekend, McCain to Speak | Electability >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Medical MJ Sellers Face 20 Year Minimums | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

as long as the prison guards' union (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by tokin librul on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:42:43 PM EST

is among the most powerfuland private prisons are deemed unconstitutional--which is until prison sizes, numbers, and populations are reduced; that is, when hell freezes over--there will be no decrease in the frequency of prosecutions or the severity of sentences on marijuana users, whether their employment of the substance be theraputic or recreational.

that said, one'd think in a civilized country, such testimony as that by the juror--"I'm really appalled to discover that there's a 20-year mandatory minimum on the continuing criminal enterprise charge," he said._--would be grounds for appeal and/or a mis-trial on the basis that the jury wasn't infoprmed properly or instructed thoroughly.

I will always vote jury nullification in any marijuana trial...always...and i recommend that, until the laws are changed, all other citizens do the same. any time, every time pot is the 'controlled substance', jury nullification is justice.

And this is only employer (none / 0) (#6)
by HelenK on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:04:23 PM EST

in many small towns so it's like shutting down a base or something.

All the complaints of prison overcrowding and the answer to the problem is so clear. Let the pot prisoners GO.


: Amen! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:23:05 PM EST

Unless they are toking and driving, in which case they should be treated like drunk drivers.
20 years is absolutely outrageous for a substance that is an essentially harmless intoxicant, and can actually be beneficial.
Let's give 20 years to the manufacturers of alcohol and see how they like it!

I was once challenged off (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST

a jury for stating my belief that marijuana should be legal for everyone. The judge asked me if I really would go against his specific orders on how to rule. My proud, "yes" got me removed first, with emphasis.

I can't imagine the mindset that insists it is a criminal act to provide relief for the terrible side effects of chemo. I know it exists, I just don't have it.

I pissed off my county DA... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:10:07 PM EST

something fierce when I was able to convince my fellow grand jurors to "no true bill" a possesion of a hypodermic needle charge.

I think it was the only "no true bill" we had all month...my proudest jury service moment:)


The one assistant DA threatened (none / 0) (#11)
by scribe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:13:47 PM EST

me with being indicted if I didn't stop asking so many inconvenient questions during my service.

I gave him a look that had a couple of my fellow jurors practically jump out of their chairs. He lost the stare-down, BTW.


Really? (none / 0) (#14)
by Claw on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:42:17 PM EST

I'm guessing you weren't being disruptive. If you were, the judge would have reminded you to keep your conduct appropriate.
Some of these guys are just not very bright. Many of them think that they can bully people into complying. The lawyer here should have been reprimanded by the judge...I'm willing to put down a few bucks that he wasn't.


There's no judge present in the grand jury (none / 0) (#19)
by scribe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:03:14 PM EST

room, at least in my state.

Naw. This was plain old lawyer-on-lawyer stare-down and snarl time.

I can't say what irked the assistant DA, but he had it coming.


: Okay (none / 0) (#31)
by Claw on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:00:25 AM EST

I thought you meant that you were asking questions during jury selection. Maybe I didn't read your post closely enough. Still bad, makes more sense.

Mandatory Minimums (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by DJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:09:05 PM EST

for drug related "crimes" is ridiculous. I remember when a federal judge had to sentence some college freshman (evidently a great kid by all accounts) to 10 yrs for mailing something to a friend. I never knew what happened in that case. Not justice by any means.

: "are" ridiculous n/t (none / 0) (#9)
by DJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:09:24 PM EST

About 6 weeks ago, a federal judge (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by scribe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST

in NY did a number on mandatory minimums. TL posted on it, and I commented here.

My basic argument is that lawyers should start trying to force sentencing - particularly the severity of it - to be before jurors. If (1) a person is presumed to know the statutory law of his/her jurisdiction (they are so presumed) and (2) sentencing - particularly mandatory minimums - is established by statue (it is), then logic compels (3) the jurors already (are presumed to) know what mandatory minimum sentences are for such crimes, and therefore (4) allowing that information to be before the jurors is no different than referring to anything else of common knowledge and experience.

In other words, putting sentencing on mandatory minimums into the set of information before jurors is telling them something they already know.

My prior comment got a bit of angry rejoinder (sounded like it came from a prosecutor) and complaints I was calling for jury nullification, but no one to my knowledge has ever come forward with a case citation which says "we considered the argument you're making , and hold that you are wrong."

I challenge anyone reading this blog to provide such a case citation (and, preferably, a link to the case itself, so we can all read along).

I'll add to that comment this one: when people are tried by the judge rather than a jury, no one raises a single peep about how unfair or wrong or whatever it is that the judge knows all about how much of a sentence the defendant could get, and still sits in judgment of innocence and guilt.

Are judges (most of whom were politicians of one stripe or another before coming to the bench) a superior class of human being, such that they can be trusted to have knowledge of the sentencing and jurors of that inferior class who cannot be so trusted?

Answers?

I dunno about this... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:57:50 PM EST

...

The next president should (and if it's a Democrat, probably will) put an end to federal prosecutions that contravene state laws permitting the sale of medical marijuana.

The Democrats bear partial responsibility for the drug war. I wouldn't count on the next president to end the raids on distribution centers in CA, partly because some of them probably aren't complying with the medicinal marijuana laws.

More than partial responsibility.... (none / 0) (#20)
by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM EST

If I'm not mistaken, Democrats have held Congress more than Republicans since the start of the drug war.

Wouldn't that make Democrats predominantly responsible?


Strutting, grandstanding (none / 0) (#21)
by jondee on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:03 PM EST

and downing shots with "the people" in working class bars is supposed to glosss over the fact that you do more harm than good.

Then you retire and hit the 50k a night speaker circuit. And the suckers always pay.


: But but but.... (none / 0) (#22)
by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:40:41 PM EST

"if drugs were legal, my brother Roger would be dead"...I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Everybody ignore the 2 ton elephant in the room, we've got a game...err election...to win.

How exactly does one (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:30:53 PM EST

"manufacture" marijuana?

: Only one way I know of.... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:41:49 PM EST

put a seed in some dirt and give it water and light and a lil TLC.
And for this heinous act Uncle Sam will take your house, your car, and your freedom. Free country my arse.

: As defined in the statute . . . (none / 0) (#30)
by JDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:21:15 PM EST

IIRC, "manufacture" is defined in the federal drug statutes to include planting, growing, cultivating, etc. So growing the plants would count as "manufacturing."
I once had an appeal where the issue was whether someone who just tossed seeds in the front yard and did nothing else constituted "cultivation" so that he was stuck with those plants at sentencing. We lost, unfortunately (Fourth Circuit - it's par for the course).

Edit (none / 0) (#4)
by tokin librul on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:46:32 PM EST

as among the most powerful and private prisons are deemed unconstitutional...

should have read:
as among the most powerful and UNTIL private prisons are deemed unconstitutional...
you prob'ly knew that, but I always recall Mencken
./

Not having (none / 0) (#7)
by Patrick on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:07:07 PM EST

heard the evidence in the case, I will say that people should look at what's happening in Mendocino County to see what people have done to pervert the medical MJ laws.

a $180K mercedes? I guess that tells the story for me anyway.

: So, on par (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:42:39 PM EST

with executives of the pharma industry?

: 180 k Mercedes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by jondee on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:03:13 PM EST

negates the fact that seriously ill persons obtain some genuine relief from their symptoms?
Alot of Doctors drive Mercedes too.
We wont even get into all the Mercedes bought by the hucksters responsible for the influx of sh*t pharmecuticals made in China.

: I'm thinking there is a pretty high (none / 0) (#16)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:51:35 PM EST

demand for this product, and not many legal sources.
Any idea what the numbers of chemo patients in the market area are?

: Well (none / 0) (#23)
by squeaky on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:05:52 PM EST

If owning 180K mercedes impresses you, maybe it is time to reconsider your line of work. If you cannot bear to leave the side that profits by the imprisonment of the MJ users and distributors then maybe you should look into getting into prison construction or the private prison business. Those guy most likely have a fleet of mercedes.

I think we all need to understand (none / 0) (#24)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:31:10 PM EST

that these guys did not get 20 years for MJ, nor even for selling MJ, they got 20 years for their conviction for their participation in a "continuing criminal enterprise."

That that charge is not flexible enough to allow consideration between a continuing criminal enterprise that's selling "medical" MJ and another that steals babies and sells them into slavery, for example, does not = "they got 20 years for selling MJ."

My life... (none / 0) (#25)
by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:36:29 PM EST

is a "continuing criminal enterprise" brother.

And Al Capone did was not pay his taxes:)


You know I'd be (none / 0) (#27)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:58:30 PM EST

sending you money for bail, my friend. I just hope for your sake you never get yourself into a position where you'd need it.


: From your lips.... (none / 0) (#28)
by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:09:21 PM EST

to the sun god's ears my friend.
No worries...I'm learning to be sneaky instead of honest:)

Commuted... (none / 0) (#29)
by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:47:53 PM EST

...sentence, not a pardon, although President Bush has not ruled it out.