United States v. Rosenthal
2003 WL 21349793, 266 F.Supp.2d 1068, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9646 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's motive for committing an act or their good-faith belief in its legality based on state or local law is not a valid defense to federal drug charges that only require a knowing or intentional act. Evidence aimed at encouraging jury nullification is inadmissible, and the defense of entrapment by estoppel requires reliance on an affirmative, misleading statement by an authorized federal official, not a state or local one.
Facts:
- In 1996, California voters enacted Proposition 215, the 'Compassionate Use Act,' legalizing the cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical purposes under state law.
- In July 1998, the City of Oakland passed an ordinance to implement Proposition 215, which purported to designate medical cannabis providers as 'officers of the City of Oakland' to grant them immunity from federal prosecution under 21 U.S.C. § 885(d).
- Following the ordinance, Oakland designated the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (OCBC) to distribute marijuana.
- The Executive Director of the OCBC gave Edward Rosenthal a letter stating that as an agent of the OCBC, he was deemed an 'officer of the City of Oakland' and was immune from federal criminal liability.
- Relying on this representation, Rosenthal operated a large indoor facility in Oakland where he cultivated hundreds of marijuana plants for distribution to medical cannabis centers.
- Mary Pat Jacobs, a medical marijuana advocate, informed Rosenthal that a DEA Supervisor, Mike Heald, had stated in 1999 that the DEA was not interested in interfering with efforts to implement Proposition 215 in Sonoma County.
Procedural Posture:
- The federal government indicted Edward Rosenthal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act.
- Rosenthal filed pre-trial motions to dismiss the indictment on several grounds, including official immunity under 21 U.S.C. § 885(d) and entrapment by estoppel.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Rosenthal's motions to dismiss.
- The government's motions in limine to exclude any defense or evidence related to medical marijuana, jury nullification, and estoppel were granted by the court.
- The case proceeded to trial, and a jury convicted Rosenthal on all counts.
- Rosenthal filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the court erred in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and on other grounds.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of a defendant's motive to grow marijuana for medical purposes, or their belief that such conduct was legal under state and local law, admissible as a defense to charges under the federal Controlled Substances Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Breyer, District Judge
No. Evidence of a defendant's motive or belief in the legality of their actions is not admissible because it is irrelevant to the elements of an offense under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The court reasoned that the federal statutes in question only require the government to prove the defendant knowingly or intentionally manufactured marijuana, making the purpose for which it was grown legally irrelevant to the determination of guilt. Admitting such evidence would only serve to encourage jury nullification. The court rejected the argument for immunity under 21 U.S.C. § 885(d), holding that Rosenthal's conduct was not 'enforcement' of a law and that the local ordinance he acted under was inconsistent with federal law. Finally, the entrapment by estoppel defense was unavailable because Rosenthal failed to show that an authorized federal official made an affirmatively misleading statement that his specific conduct was legal; reliance on local officials or a vague, second-hand statement about a different county was insufficient.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the supremacy of federal law over conflicting state laws, particularly in the realm of controlled substances. It clarifies that participation in a state-sanctioned medical marijuana program provides no defense against federal prosecution, leaving individuals and businesses in a state of legal jeopardy. The court's firm rejection of evidence aimed at jury nullification underscores the judicial principle that juries must apply the law as instructed, not their own moral or political judgments. By setting a high bar for the entrapment-by-estoppel defense—requiring direct, affirmative misstatements from federal officials—the case significantly limits defendants' ability to claim they were misled by state or local governments.
