Sunday, April 26th, 2009 at 6:20 pm | By: Dudemaster
Hot off the press! The production by reason.tv, “A Way Out, Lynch Sentencing Update”, provides new interviews with Charlie and illustrates the frustration between everyone involved in the trial and the federal government.
On April 23, 2009 a federal judge postponed the sentencing of Charlie Lynch, the man at the center of the nation’s debate over medical marijuana. Lynch operated a medical marijuana dispensary that was completely legal under California law.
His business was raided by federal agents in 2007 and last year he was found guilty in federal court of distributing marijuana.
The judge signaled that, if possible, he wanted to find a way to avoid the five-year mandatory minimum sentence proscribed by law.
“To be blunt, if I could find a way out, I would,” said U.S. District Judge George H. Wu.
At the hearing, Wu heard from several character witnesses, including Owen Beck, a former patient of Lynch. Beck’s parents obtained medical marijuana when he was battling bone cancer at age 17. During the trial, Beck briefly took the stand, but his testimony was cut short by Wu. Steve Beck, Owen’s father, told Wu that “Lynch did not make much money off of us,” noting that Lynch provided them with medical marijuana “for free or at a very deep discount.” Steve Beck questioned “how the incarceration of Charlie Lynch would benefit society.”
Also among the character witnesses were Tom Lynch, brother of Charlie, and officials from Morro Bay, California, where Lynch’s dispensary was located.
The courtroom was filled to capacity, and toward the end of the hearing roughly 90 percent of those in attendance stood up in a silent sign of support for Lynch. They remained standing for approximately 15 minutes.
Wu scheduled the next and final hearing for June 11.
In this reason.tv video update, we hear from Morro Bay Mayor Janice Peters, Morro Bay City Attorney Robert Schultz, Tom Lynch, Lynch defense attorney Reuven Cohen, and Charlie Lynch.
Approximately 4 minutes. Produced by Ted Balaker; shot by Paul Detrick.
Friday, April 24th, 2009 at 7:20 am | By: Radical Russ
(Los Angeles Times) The sentencing of a man who has become a key figure in the national debate over medical marijuana was postponed Thursday, with a federal judge saying he was inclined to impose a more lenient sentence than the five years required by federal sentencing guidelines, but questioning whether he had the authority to do so.
“If I could find a way out, I would,” U.S. District Judge George H. Wu said. He gave lawyers in the case until June 2 to file briefs regarding the impending sentence of Charles Lynch.
Lynch, 47, ran a medical marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay on the Central Coast in 2006 and 2007. Despite having the blessing of the city’s mayor and other public officials, he was charged with violating federal drug laws for distributing marijuana and was convicted by a federal court jury in Los Angeles last year.
Cultivating, using and selling doctor-recommended medical marijuana is allowed under some circumstances in California and a dozen other states, but federal law bans the drug altogether.
Though Lynch was not charged with violating state law, prosecutors contend that he broke the law because he was not truly a “primary caregiver” entitled to dispense marijuana to patients and that he profited from the operation of his business.
Much of the discussion Thursday dealt with whether Wu was required to sentence Lynch to a mandatory minimum of five years or whether the defendant was entitled to a lesser sentence under a so-called safety valve.
The next hearing in the case, which the judge said would be the last, is scheduled for June 11.
So the federal prosecutors contend Lynch was violating state law regarding the patient/caregiver relationship, yet since federal law doesn’t recognize state medical marijuana laws, Lynch isn’t allowed to mention state law in his defense. Got it? When it comes to federally prosecuting Lynch, his violation of state law is admissable, but when it comes to federally defending Lynch, his adherence to state law is inadmissable.
President Obama, when you promised “What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue”, isn’t the Charles Lynch case exactly what you had in mind? Attorney General Holder, when you promised “Our focus will be on people, organizations that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way that’s inconsistent with federal and state law”, how do you justify prosecuting Charles Lynch?
Shortly after AG Holder made the announcement on Feb. 26, I wrote this:
Here’s my prediction: we will see more medical marijuana dispensary raids and the Obama Administration will claim they have no issue with legitimate medical marijuana providers, but these providers were operating outside California law and these providers were diverting medical marijuana to the black market and these providers were selling to minors and whole raft of excuses where they emphasize that these providers are a reasonable exception to “using Justice Department resources” because they were outside of Prop 215 / SB 420 / Jerry Brown’s Guidelines and therefore, the DEA is not “circumvent[ing] state laws on this issue”.
If the federal government believes that dispensaries are operating outside California law, then they need to refer those cases to California’s attorney general. If California decides these people are violating California law, then California should prosecute them. The promise not to conduct raids unless dispensaries break California law is hollow when the feds get to decide someone broke California law with no trial or evidence before conducting the raid.
Thursday, April 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm | By: Radical Russ
LOS ANGELES (AP) – A judge has postponed sentencing for a Morro Bay medical marijuana dispensary convicted of 5 federal counts, including distributing the drug.
Charles Lynch was scheduled to be sentenced Thursday, but the judge delayed a decision until June 11 in federal court in Los Angeles.
The decision came after attorneys argued about what kind of prison sentence, if any, the 47-year-old should receive in light of statements made last month by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
More time to build the political action necessary to force the Obama Administration to live up to the spirit of his promise to leave the states alone when it comes to regulating the practice of medicine.
Thursday, April 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm | By: Radical Russ
(KSBY.com) A local medical marijuana case is getting national attention as the Obama administration weighs in on the sentencing of Charles Lynch.
In August, Charles Lynch was convicted on five federal counts stemming from his medical marijuana dispensary. He was the owner of Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers in Morro Bay.
Lynch is facing between five and 100 years in prison.
A judge postponed his sentencing last month after the justice department said it had no plans to prosecute dispensary owners who operate within their state’s law.
The government is recommending a prison sentence of five years, plus four years probation.
Charles Lynch faced his sentencing today and we’ll have full coverage on tomorrow’s Stash. But I still want Stashers to call President Obama at 202-456-1111 and Attorney General Holder at 202-353-1555 and let them know how you feel about federal intrusion into state medical marijuana laws, and that you expect both to keep to their promise to let the states regulate their medical marijuana programs.
Incarcerating Charles Lynch serves no useful purpose to the United States. Justice is not merely weighing actions against statutes; justice is seeing fair application of the law. We don’t write laws to harass and punish the people; we write laws to protect and serve the people. Punishing Charles Lynch for obeying state law will not win the drug war or even deter the next dispensary from opening.
How tragically ironic that Charles Lynch may be punished by our government for alleviating the tortured suffering of others in a week when we learn that our government was clinically detailed in its manufacturing of the tortured suffering of others. If only Charles Lynch had a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel…
Monday, March 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm | By: Radical Russ
A federal judge in Los Angeles this morning postponed the sentencing of a man who emerged as a key figure in the national debate over medical marijuana, saying he wanted additional information about a reported change in the Justice Department’s policy regarding such prosecutions.
U.S. District Court Judge George H. Wu asked prosecutors for a written response from the Justice Department about its position on medical marijuana prosecutions in light of recent comments from Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.
Holder said last week that the Justice Department under President Obama had no plans to prosecute dispensary owners who operated within their state’s law.
Wu said he did not believe that any change in policy would affect the conviction of Charles Lynch, 47. But the judge said he wanted to consider any new information about the policy before imposing sentence.
Following the verdict in August, the jury forewoman said jurors believed Lynch “meant well” but concluded that he was breaking federal law.
I don’t know what information Judge Wu could get from the new federal policy that would change sentencing, since his hands are tied by the mandatory minimums Joe Biden helped to create.
Tuesday, March 10th, 2009 at 9:45 am | By: Radical Russ
Charlie Lynch learned that the hard way [that Prop 215 didn't protect him], when federal authorities raided his home and small business in southern California in March 2007.
“I hear the banging of my front door,” Lynch recalled. “I opened the door and about 10 to 15 agents with shields, bullet-proof vests, guns, masks, they came barreling in.”
Drug Enforcement Administration agents seized 30 pounds of marijuana from Lynch’s business. The action wasn’t a surprise to San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Pat Hedges, who had been investigating Lynch for about a year.
“They sent in undercover sheriff’s deputies to go encourage Charlie to break the federal law,” Lynch’s lawyer, John Littrell, said. “In every case, what they found was that his employees always verified doctor’s recommendations. No one could manage to get anybody, Charlie or anyone that Charlie was working with, to dispense marijuana in a way that violated state law.”
After a year, the sheriff handed information over to the federal government’s DEA that Lynch had been selling marijuana. Even though California allows medical marijuana, federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic — the same as heroin. Under federal law, Lynch was no different from a common drug dealer.
“Marijuana, under federal law, is a more serious narcotic than crack cocaine,” said Reuven Cohen, another of Lynch’s lawyers.
Lynch was hauled into federal court, which meant that his attorneys could not even mention the state law that permits the use of medical marijuana. Lynch was convicted and faces up to 100 years in federal prison.
This is a snippet from a story appearing this Friday, March 13, on a special hour with ABC News 20/20’s John Stossel called “Bailouts, Big Spending and Bull.” Stossel also tells the story of teenager Owen Beck, who lost a limb to cancer and sought medical marijuana from Lynch’s dispensary. That teenager who bravely fought through chemotherapy had a doctor’s recommendation for cannabis, the only medicine that would ease the pain and nausea and allow him to eat, and the federal prosecutors framed it as if Lynch was the local high school kids’ dealer of choice.
My favorite line, though, comes from the profile of cancer survivor, Grammy-winning singer/songwriter Melissa Etheridge, who also procured her medical marijuana through Lynch’s dispensary:
“When it comes to the medicinal use of this herb, it is nothing about getting high,” Etheridge said. “You’re not getting high. You are trying to get to a place of normal.”
[Charles] Lynch, flanked by his defense attorneys, hung his head and grimaced as the verdicts were read in a Los Angeles courtroom. He could be sentenced to a minimum of five years in federal prison or as many as 85.
Kitty Meese, the jury forewoman, said … jurors had a clear sense that Lynch was not an ordinary street-corner drug dealer, but the fact that he was dispensing medical marijuana didn’t matter under federal law.
“We all felt Mr. Lynch intended well,” Meese said. “But under the parameters we were given for the federal law, we didn’t have a choice.”
She added, “it was a tough decision for all of us because the state law and the federal law are at odds.”
Deputy Federal Public Defender John Littrell, one of Lynch’s lawyers, said the case was tough to defend because the judge ruled that Lynch’s reliance on state laws that permitted medical marijuana was irrelevant.
At one point, Littrell and co-counsel Reuven Cohen attempted to elicit testimony from Owen Beck, who was a teenager when he was diagnosed with bone cancer and began visiting Lynch with his parents to receive marijuana prescribed by his oncologist at Stanford University.
Beck was supposedly going to testify about Lynch’s character, but as soon as his illness came up he was cut short by U.S. District Judge George Wu.
“Virtually none of the evidence we wanted to present was presented,” Littrell said. “In that sense, it’s not that surprising that the jury came to the decision it did.”
Once again, the federal government secures a pot conviction through lying and suppression of fact. The jury rejected the notion that a DEA official told Lynch he’d be free from prosecution if he obeyed state laws. The jury forewoman even remarked, “I think all of us sometimes choose to hear what we want to hear,” considering that it would make no sense for the DEA to tell Lynch such a thing.
I guess it is touching that our citizens believe the agents of the DEA would never lie in order to rack up another raid and conviction. Incredibly naive, though, when you figure that the entire federal argument against medical marijuana is composed of lies.
Nobody must vote to convict anybody for violating federal drug laws. The judge and prosecutors will intimidate a jury, instructing them they must make a determination of fact, that they must adhere to the narrowly-drawn federal language, that regardless of what they think about a law, it is their duty to uphold it.
Nonsense. Juries are the last bastion against bad law. A jury can decide on the merits of the law itself. The problem is that people like us who know these things often get kicked off of juries during selection – no prosecutor wants to see me sitting there in the jury box.
So if you get called for jury duty, keep your views on marijuana private or at least neutral. They’ll ask you questions about it; try to give non-committal answers that lead them to believe you’re neutral on the subject. Don’t lie in court, that’s never good, but be selective in how much truth you want to tell. They won’t let us mention medical marijuana in court? Then there’s no need to mention our support of medical marijuana in jury selection.
I think what disappoints me the most is that the jury forewoman is a registered nurse. A nurse just voted to imprison a man for helping treat patients with cannabis, following the law of the state of California, the same entity which registers her as a nurse to treat patients under California law.
Tuesday, August 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pm | By: Radical Russ
Trial of marijuana dispensary owner goes to jury – Los Angeles Times
A closely watched trial involving conflicting marijuana laws went to a federal court jury Monday, with jurors asked to determine if the owner of a Morro Bay pot dispensary is guilty of violating federal drug laws.
During a week-and-a-half-long trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, federal prosecutors sought to depict Charles Lynch, the owner of the dispensary, as a common drug dealer who sold pot to teenagers and carried a backpack stuffed with cash.
Lynch is charged with distributing marijuana, conspiring to distribute marijuana and providing marijuana to people under the age of 21.
He faces a minimum of five years in federal prison if convicted.
Lynch’s defense attorneys sought to portray him as a responsible businessman who had the blessing of Morro Bay’s mayor and city attorney before opening his Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers.
Moreover, they argued, he was told by an official with the Drug Enforcement Administration that enforcement on such facilities would be left up to local authorities, implying that Lynch would avoid federal prosecution if he obeyed the local laws.
That became the basis for their defense, known as entrapment by estoppel, in which a defendant essentially argues that he broke the law based on bad advice from a government official.
Prosecutors scoffed at the argument. They called to the witness stand a DEA agent who they said spoke with Lynch, and she said she never would have given him such advice.
Well, of course not! Only a person who could believe that the government would lie in order to set up a dispensary bust would think such a thing.
My hope is that there are citizens on that jury who understand their rights and their power. Jurors can decide the law itself is unjust and refuse to convict a defendant, even if the evidence clearly shows they broke the law.
Monday, July 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pm | By: Radical Russ
Conflicting marijuana laws take stage in trial – Los Angeles Times
A highly anticipated trial involving conflicting marijuana laws got underway Friday in Los Angeles federal court with a prosecutor painting the owner of a Morro Bay medicinal marijuana store as a brazen drug trafficker who sold dope to teenagers and toted around a backpack stuffed with cash.
Defense attorneys struggled to provide context for their client’s alleged crimes after being barred by the judge from mentioning the phrase “medical marijuana.”
At the center of the case is Charlie Lynch, a 46-year-old businessman from San Luis Obispo County, who opened a facility called Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers in the spring of 2006.
Lynch’s defense attorneys would like to present evidence that their client was dispensing doctor-prescribed medical marijuana to sick people in accordance with state law and with the blessing of elected officials in Morro Bay. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that federal drug laws trump those of the state and that the reasons why the drug is distributed are irrelevant.
But one of Lynch’s lawyers hinted during opening statements that Lynch had sought — and presumably received — approval from an official with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration before he set up shop. If they are able to convince U.S. District Judge George Wu that there is a sufficient basis for mounting such a quasi-entrapment defense, they may be allowed to present evidence that Lynch believed he was operating within the law, which legal experts said would likely make him more sympathetic to jurors.
In previous federal medical marijuana cases, defendants have been forbidden to mention that they were growing medical marijuana for sick people in accordance with California law. When juries have convicted these people, shortly thereafter the jurors are approached by media, asking how they felt about the harsh sentence they just handed out to a medical marijuana provider. Then these jurors become angry that they weren’t told the truth about the case and almost always they say they would never have voted to convict if they’d known it was medical marijuana.
It’s truly Bizarro world when your government can charge you with a felony and then prevent you from raising a defense. I understand that Raich v. Gonzales affirmed the supremacy of federal law over California’s Prop 215, but I still don’t understand why that means you can’t even mention medical marijuana in court.
Let’s say I robbed a bank. When I’m caught and go to trial, my defense is that L. Ron Hubbard appeared to me in a dream and told me bank robbing was not only legal, but my duty to take the money of the rich and give it to the poor. That’s not going to be a valid defense for bank robbing, but would the government forbid me from bringing it up? Certainly the judge could instruct the jury on the federal statutes against bank robbing and could instruct them that even if they are sympathetic to my fevered imagination and altruistic intent, that they have to decide the case based on federal law.
Why does that not apply to medical marijuana? Why can a person not submit their reasons for committing the crime – be they belief in dreams or adherence to state law – in federal court? Why can’t the judge instruct the jury that California’s Prop 215 is not an acceptable defense to federal law?
I’ll tell you why – because every time the federal government is forced to talk about medical marijuana, they’re losing. If a federal prosecutor had to press a case involving lengthy prison sentences and massive fines against a defendant the jury knows to be a medical caregiver, the whole “stalwart defenders of wholesome society” facade comes crashing down and they’re seen as brutal, vindictive, reefer mad prohibitionists who don’t care how many sick and disabled people are crushed beneath the wheels of their drug war juggernaut.
RevRayGreen: I'll post a pic of me and my son....gimme a minute
Missippi Hippy: Guess what... I'm gonna be a new... ummmmm well, my pet piggie Ganja is in labor and they ain't mine in the same sense. See what your wife [...]
RevRayGreen: days they didn't talk back..or act disrespectful..
RevRayGreen: feel so lucky my son is 18 going 19 and my daughter 16 going on 17..relish the days that can't talk back
Urb Age: Congrats Spof thats awesome. My little Clara is about to hit 20 months. Im not the activist I used to be, but its made me a better man.
Urb Age: Heck I was gonna go up there, but just not feeling well this weekend..Dang it, I hate it when that happens..
RevRayGreen: wishing I was hanging at NORML cafe...
JohnH: Just a quick comment about tokin' and sperm motility....been tokin since age 14 and have 8 kids ranging in age from 30 to 9...(what can I say, I found 2 [...]
slash5city: really ..oprah 35 yr or more in the closet toker ...outed ....o my god !!
SneakerPimp: that would be huge news just imagen the headline
RevRayGreen: maybe Oprah smokes and keeps it on the DL...
American Medical Association Calls For Scientific Review Of Marijuana's Prohibitive Status; Dutch Marijuana Use Lower Than European Average, Study Says […]
"Truth In Trials Act" Reintroduced In Congress; Maine: Voters Approve Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Measure; Colorado: Breckenridge Voters Overwhelmingly Decide To End Pot Penalties. […]
Some of the nation’s top athletes discuss why today's pros are turning to cannabis — and away from alcohol and painkillers — off the field, and question why pro sports leagues are continuing to sanction those who do. Moderator: Steve Bloom, Author, Pot Culture; editor, celebstoner.com * Toby Grear, MMA fighter * Sean Neumann, Documentary Filmm […]
Cannabis Law Reform's Missing Link: Law Enforcement Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper; LEAP and NORML Advisory Board; Author of Breaking Rank Putting the Mexican Cartels Out of Business Mexican drug cartels now employ over 100,000 soldiers and are responsible for nearly ten thousand deaths per year. Their largest source of income is marijuana. […]
Charlie Lynch on Reason.tv
Hot off the press! The production by reason.tv, “A Way Out, Lynch Sentencing Update”, provides new interviews with Charlie and illustrates the frustration between everyone involved in the trial and the federal government.
Topics: California, Charles Lynch, dispensaries, Dispensary, interview, media, medical marijuana, Morro Bay, Reason.TV, video
Fresh Stash V RSS Feed
Loading ...
