Jurors Who Convicted Marijuana Grower Seek New Trial

Nothing quite like an "informed" and "intelligent" jury!

This is the most ludicrous Ashcroft stunt to date. This show exactly how far the Bush Administration will go to show it's total disregard to the will of the people. We are entering a total totalitarian state unless the people rise-now!

Extract from your link shows he was tried in federal court. Wouldn't federal law have to follow, and the verdict depend on the facts?

"The judge in the case, Judge Charles R. Breyer of Federal District Court, had barred Mr. Rosenthal's defense from mentioning the state law because he was indicted under federal law, which does not allow the growing of marijuana for any purpose."

How could they never have been advised of these details? What the hell was that guy's lawyer doing?

What was the Judge doing?

roger

But that is the question what should take precedence? State or federal law? Can the federal government override state law?
As to the question where was his lawyer, the judge evidentially did not allow that information to be presented.

http://examiner.com/warren_hinckle/default.jsp?story=n.hinckle.0123w

A prejudicial judge?
BY WARREN HINCKLE
Examiner Associate Editor
AT 8:40 LAST NIGHT, I had the last interview with Ed Rosenthal, I guess.
If U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer sticks to his judicial guns, he will issue a gag order Thursday barring the defendant from talking to the likes of me.
I spoke with Rosenthal on Wednesday night at his home in Oakland. Let the condemned man in this absurdist federal pot trial -- in which the robed judge is ever day morphing more into a nonsense character out of Godot -- have his last words:
…………………..

Oakland officials were lined up to testify that Rosenthal only did what they asked him to do under state law. But Breyer wouldn't let them testify.
The federal judge forbade the jury from even hearing that California law approved of what Rosenthal was doing.
This myopic judge -- no Learned Hand, he -- insisted that the only thing presented to the jury was that Rosenthal grew some pot plants.
I have covered civil rights cases in the deep South in the frenetic '60s and seen your usual demonstrer busted for walking across a sidewalk treated with more fairness and civility by Southern judges than Judge Breyer has shown the accused pot fiend Rosenthal.

You'll have to ask a lawyer about that, au. Certainly, the state cannot be required to enforce federal law, but this was in a federal court.

I don't like this application of the law either, by the way. Change the law.

roger
Change the Law. That has about as much chance as a snowball in hell with this congress and administration. Can you see the religious right ever going for that change of law. And the bible say's don't smoke pot.

What happened to "States Rights" - what a hypocrisy this administration represents!

or covet thy neighbors pot

In a federal court, if there are both federal and state laws which cover the same circumstance, federal law prevails.

jespah
Why than should a state pass laws that are basically meaningless.

Right. Okay, blame the courts for enforcing the law.

roger
The law says you are to be judged by a jury of your peers. Do you think that jury would have convicted if they had been told the entire truth. The scales of justice I would say were out of balance.

OH! So what you really want to discuss is jury nullification?

Roger the article was about a jury who wanted someone who they convicted retried. Why because the verdict would never have guilty if all the facts were known. Facts that the judge would not allow to be made known

I understand what the article was about, really I do. The fact that the federal crime was not a crime under state law is simply not relevant to a federal case. I do not think you want to understand that, but there it is. Had they acquited based on this information, it would have been a case of jury nullification. That is why I asked if you were wanting to discuss nullification.

Maybe the defendant should ask for a retrial. He would at least have standing in the matter. I do not believe the jury does.

Okay, you do not like the way the law was applied. Neither do I, which is a statement I have already made.

Well, with all due respect to the various points of view here, I humbly suggest Mr. Rosenthal may have some basis for an appeal. At least I hope so! This is the war on drugs run amok...