Motion
for New Trial Denied in Rosenthal Medical Marijuana Case
Sentencing to Take Place June 4th
May
16, 2003 - Evidence that one juror violated the court's
instructions by contacting an attorney for advice during
the trial - and conveyed the information to another juror
- was not enough for the judge to declare a mistrial in
the medical marijuana case of Ed Rosenthal. After two dramatic
hearings on the question early last month, trial judge Charles
Breyer ruled today that the actions of the jurors did not
entitle Rosenthal to a new trial.
In
the motion just dismissed, Rosenthal's attorneys had argued
that jurors received 'extra-judicial' information that unfairly
influenced their verdict. A declaration from juror Marney
Craig stated that, during the trial, confusion over the
judge's instructions led her to seek legal advice on whether
she could vote "not guilty."
Two
other jurors, Pam Klarkowski and Eve Tulley-Dobkin, had
testified that Craig spoke with them about it. Both said
Craig had told them the attorney advised her that she must
follow the judge's instructions and that she would be in
trouble if she did otherwise.
Rosenthal's
attorneys maintain that fear of consequences caused Craig
and Klarkowski to vote against their consciences in finding
Rosenthal guilty. The Supreme Court has ruled that bias
or fear influencing even a single juror is grounds for dismissing
a verdict.
Today's
ruling also rejected Rosenthal's other reasons for a new
trial. Defense attorneys had additionally argued that the
court had improperly excluded 19 potential jurors because
of their views on medical marijuana, that the court's instructions
to the trial jury were wrong with respect to their ability
to vote their consciences, and that the court erred in excluding
Rosenthal's "entrapment by estoppel" defense,
which rests on Rosenthal's understanding that Oakland officials
had immunized him from federal prosecution. The defense
had also argued that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct
before the grand jury to get the indictment in the first
place.
While
Judge Breyer found that prosecutor George Bevan, Jr., in
obtaining the indictment against Rosenthal, made false statements
"calculated to overcome grand jurors' concerns"
about patients' ability to obtain medical marijuana, he
concluded the lies did not interfere with the grand jury's
function.
Judge
Breyer's ruling means Rosenthal's conviction stands, and
he will be sentenced on June 4, 2003 to anywhere from 5
years in federal prison to more than 80. Once Rosenthal
is sentenced, his attorneys will be able to file an appeal,
asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn his
conviction.
ROSENTHAL
JUROR INVOKES FIFTH AMENDMENT
April
3, 2003 -- The hearing on Ed Rosenthal's motion to grant
a mistrial was held on April 1. Judge Breyer heard testimony
from two of the jurors about extra-judicial information
that was discussed during and after the trial. In brief,
Pam Klarkowski testified that fellow juror Marney Craig
told her that she was going to contact a lawyer friend of
hers regarding legal issues surrounding the case. Craig
then told Klarkowski the results of her conversation with
the attorney. Eva Tulley-Dobkin, another juror, testified
that Craig told her after the verdict that the lawyer she
contacted said she could get in trouble if she voted to
acquit.
The
hearing was continued until April 8. There are two issues
for the judge to consider: the request for Marney Craig
to receive immunity in return for her testimony and the
motion to grant a mistrial for jury misconduct.
Craig
is reluctant to provide the name of the attorney friend
to whom she spoke, and she fears reprisal if she withholds
it. On the advice of her attorney, Craig, who was under
subpoena, took shelter under the Fifth Amendment protection
against self-incrimination and refused to testify. The judge
urged the federal prosecutor to give Craig immunity. He
asked the attorneys to work out the immunity problems this
week and to report to him on Monday.
Ed
Rosenthal Remains Free Until Sentencing, June 4th
Jurors Denounce Their Own Verdict, Join City Officials in
Calling for a New Trial
Tuesday,
February 4, 2003 -- In the already-weird case of noted marijuana
author and activist Ed Rosenthal, the surreal moments continued
at his bail-revocation hearing Tuesday, as six of the jurors
from the trial sat at the front of the courtroom in a show
of support for the man they had convicted four days earlier.
Despite
the best efforts of the U.S. Attorney's Office to incarcerate
him immediately, Mr. Rosenthal was allowed to remain free
on $200,000 bail, pending his sentencing on three federal
counts of marijuana cultivation, which is scheduled for
June 4, 2003. The sentencing range is from a minimum of
five years to more than eighty, with possible fines of several
million dollars -- though U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer
said after the verdict was read last Friday that he would
like to be able to go below the minimum. Whether Mr. Rosenthal
qualifies for an exception to normal sentencing has yet
to be determined.
In
addition to ruling that Mr. Rosenthal was not a flight risk,
Judge Breyer again noted the extraordinary circumstances
of Mr. Rosenthal's prosecution and trial, and stated they
were a reason for his being allowed to remain at large.
Defense counsel found this aspect of the judge's ruling
encouraging, as it suggests that Mr. Rosenthal would also
be allowed to remain free on bail pending appeal, if Judge
Breyer does not grant their motion for a new trial before
then. They have also filed a motion to have the original
Grand Jury indictment dismissed for misconduct by the prosecutor.
After
the hearing, the six jurors met with Mr. Rosenthal, his
family, defense attorneys and selected supporters before
holding an unprecedented press conference outside the federal
building. Surrounded by a sea of microphones, cameras and
reporters, the soft-spoken jury foreman, Charles Sackett,
read a letter of apology to Mr. Rosenthal and his family.
Another of the jurors, Marney Craig, read a statement endorsed
by eight of the twelve jurors and two alternates, demanding
a new trial for Mr. Rosenthal. Two others who had deliberated
on the panel made statements apologizing for their verdict
and questioning the system that had "railroaded"
them to their decision. A third juror, one of the two alternates
on the panel, expressed relief at not having to live with
the responsibility of the verdict, but said he, too, shared
in the shock and outrage that so much of what might have
been said in Mr. Rosenthal's defense had been kept from
them.
Joining
jurors in denouncing what many are calling a "travesty
of justice" was San Francisco District Attorney Terence
Hallinan and two of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors,
Board President Matt Gonzales and Supervisor Tom Ammiano.
After
hugging the jury foreman, Mr. Rosenthal told the press and
his supporters that the jury had been as "victimized"
by the way the case had been conducted as he had.
Attorneys
for Mr. Rosenthal had been prevented from telling the jury
about his role in the City of Oakland's program to implement
California's medical marijuana law. As part of that program,
he was deputized as an official of the city to provide immunity
from prosecution under the federal statute that protects
federal, state and local officials who possess or transport
otherwise illegal drugs as part of their jobs.
Prior
to the trial, Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the federal
immunity statute, 885(d), was not intended by Congress to
protect such activities as Oakland's medical marijuana distribution
program, whether they deputized participants or not, so
it could not be invoked by Mr. Roseenthal. That interpretation
of the statute, which is based on Congressional intent rather
than the literal language of the law, is already under appeal
in connection with another case, a fact Judge Breyer mentioned
again in Tuesday's bail hearing, saying that he may well
be overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals soon.
Such a reversal by the Ninth Circuit would effectively nullify
Mr. Rosenthal's conviction.
The
jury in Mr. Rosenthal's case was allowed to hear nothing
about that immunity question. Nor were they allowed to hear
his related "entrapment by estoppel" defense,
which comes into play if immunity doesn't apply. His attorneys
argued pre-trial that since numerous government officials
had told him he had immunity, Mr. Rosenthal reasonably believed
what he was doing was legal under both state and federal
law, so any prosecution is a form of entrapment much like
a police officer telling you to cross the street against
the light and then citing you for jaywalking. Judge Breyer's
refusal to allow them to present the jury with this defense,
despite clear legal precedent, will likely form the basis
for any appeal.
Ed
Rosenthal Found Guilty -- New Trial Sought
Friday,
January 31 -- In front of a crowd of spectators and supporters,
many of whom sobbed as the verdict was read, noted author
and activist Ed Rosenthal was convicted in federal court
today of marijuana cultivation charges.
Upon
leaving the courthouse with his family, a subdued but defiant
Mr. Rosenthal was greeted by a mob of cameras, microphones
and well-wishers. He and his attorneys vowed to fight on,
saying this was a struggle for patients' rights that would
win out in the end.
While
he was found guilty of all three counts, the most serious
related to conspiracy to grow more than a thousand plants,
and on that count the jury found that he had conspired to
grow more than a hundred but less than the thousand the
indictment had specified -- a finding defense attorneys
counted as a victory.
That
leaves his conviction for cultivation of more than a hundred
plants as the offense with the stiffest penalty, with a
sentencing range of from 5 to 40 years and a fine of up
to $2 million dollars.
But
after dismissing the jury, Judge Charles Breyer said that
he would be conducting his own "independent inquiry"
into determining whether he could make a "downward
departure" on the sentencing, meaning impose less than
the minimum sentence mandated by law. Such an inquiry would
be to determine Mr. Rosenthal's eligibility for an extraordinary
exception to normal sentencing.
Judge
Breyer noted the extraordinary circumstances of the case
in rejecting the motion of Assistant U.S. Attorney George
Bevan, Jr. to have Mr. Rosenthal placed in immediate detention.
Judge
Breyer granted Defense Counsel Robert Eye and William Simpich
an additional 30 days beyond the normal ten to file their
request for a new trial. He also set the sentencing date
as June 4th, much farther out than is normal.
The
nearly six months until sentencing should allow enough time
for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide the appeal
of another of Judge Breyer's cases that dealt with a similar
question of immunity from prosecution in the context of
medical marijuana distribution. Mr. Rosenthal had made a
nearly identical claim in his case, which Judge Breyer had
refused to allow. If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
overturns Judge Breyer's interpretation of the federal statute,
as he himself said they very well might, it would guarantee
that Mr. Rosenthal's conviction would be overturned.
Verdict
Awaited in Federal Medical Marijuana Trial
Jury Deliberating on Charges that Could Mean Life
Sentence
Thursday,
January 30 -- The case of the United States vs. Edward Rosenthal,
marijuana author and activist, is now in the hands of a
jury of his peers, or as close to a jury of his peers as
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer would allow.
But
more on that in a moment; first,
the developments in the final day of evidence and arguments:
In
front of an overflow crowd in the courtroom, the prosecution
concluded its case with the remainder of the testimony from
Special Agent John Brian Padgett of the DEA, who testified
further as to the plants he'd helped seize from the Harm
Reduction Center on February 12, 2002. He told the court
that he had counted 714 plants that day, and had seized
various records, but had no way to tie those plants to Mr.
Rosenthal, either directly or indirectly. He said he had
found a roster of workers for the center, but that he had
not seen Mr. Rosenthal's name on it. The government alleges
that Mr. Rosenthal was not only supplying the center but
also running the cultivation operation there. Agent Padgett
was unable to offer any evidence of such a relationship.
With
that, the prosecution rested its case, and court recessed
briefly.
Once
the jury exited the courtroom, there ensued yet another
round of arguments as to what the defense could ask its
first witness, Alameda County Supervisor Nathan Miley, who
had been an Oakland City Council member when Mr. Rosenthal
began participating in the city's medical marijuana distribution
program. Assistant U.S. Attorney George Bevan, Jr. renewed
his objection to Supervisor Miley being allowed to testify
at all, and once that was denied, asked Judge Breyer to
strike half the defense's proposed questions, including
those related to Mr. Rosenthal's obtaining of a City of
Oakland business license to grow marijuana, and his involvement
in the city's Public Safety Committee Working Group on Medical
Marijuana. That objection was sustained, and the defense
was left with little more than the chance to ask Supervisor
Miley about where he'd first met Mr. Rosenthal -- so long
as no one mentioned either the name or purpose of the meeting,
because both mentioned marijuana -- and his experience touring
the cultivation facility - so long as all he commented on
was Mr. Rosenthal's openness.
Even
those limitations did not prevent the trial from transcending
the surreal to the comical when he took the stand.
With
Defense Attorney William Simpich questioning, Supervisor
Miley began by saying he'd met Mr. Rosenthal as part of
trying to "implement Prop 215," California's voter
initiative directing that marijuana be made safely and legally
available to qualifying patients. The reference to the California
law drew immediate objection from Prosecutor Bevan and rebuke
from Judge Breyer, who asked Attorney Simpich to lead Supervisor
Miley through the questions already approved, a process
designed to limit a witness's answers to "yes"
and "no" by the attorney making a statement as
to the fact to be established, followed by, "isn't
that correct?"
In
answer to Attorney Simpich's next question, if he had been
aware of what Mr. Rosenthal was doing, Supervisor Miley
said Mr. Rosenthal was providing marijuana plants to "patients
who could not grow their own." This remark drew another
sustained objection and an even sharper rebuke from Judge
Breyer, who also instructed the jury yet again that the
purpose of growing marijuana was not for them to consider.
Judge Breyer then instructed defense counsel to either lead
the witness through the questions as written and approved,
or he, Judge Breyer, would ask them of the witness himself.
When
Defense Attorney Simpich attempted to ask another straightforward
question, he was again stopped and scolded. After he protested
to Judge Breyer that he was following the questions previously
approved, Judge Breyer took matters into his own hands and
proceeded to ask Supervisor Miley the remainder of the questions
- to the obvious amazement and amusement of the witness
and several members of the jury, as well as Attorney Simpich.
The
questions were few, and the answers amounted to Supervisor
Miley's agreement that he had toured the Oakland warehouse,
that there had been marijuana plants growing there, and
that Mr. Rosenthal had made no attempt to conceal his activities.
With that he was excused from the stand and exited the courtroom,
to be met by a throng of reporters seeking comment, to whom
the whole story could be told.
The
defense then called a forensic expert, Daniel Weaver, a
retired Naval officer who'd conducted court martials of
personnel accused of marijuana offenses while in the military,
and had subsequently worked as a criminal defense investigator
on marijuana cultivation cases. Based on his training, research,
and experience investigating more than 200 grow operations,
Mr. Weaver stated that what the government prosecutor and
witnesses had been identifying as roots were in fact merely
the precursors of root structures, and that in his careful
examination of all the photographic, videographic and physical
evidence, he had found no "clones" with "readily
visible root formations."
He
also testified that there was no evidence by which he could
verify the count of the so-called "mother plants"
which had been used for producing the clones. He stated
that the DEA's own count could have been in error because
they had failed to count plants based on root structure,
a mistake that runs the risk of counting the stalks of a
single plant as separate ones, as multiple stalks can originate
from the base and not just a central stalk.
Prosecutor
Bevan did his best to shake the expert witness and get him
to concede that anything protruding from the base of a cutting
had to be a root, but Mr. Weaver carefully and deliberately
repeated his detailed explanation of the different stages
of plant and root development, using the government's photos
as examples, and reiterated his conclusion that there was
no evidence of what he would classify as roots on any of
the clones.
With
that, the defense rested.
Judge
Breyer then instructed the jury that, among other things,
they could not hold against Mr. Rosenthal his decision not
to testify. Judge Breyer also provided them with the basic
guidelines as to how to deliberate, told them that no financial
records could be considered as evidence of profit because
that was not at issue, provided them with a legal definition
of what constitutes a marijuana plant, and told them that
the cultivation of marijuana is never legal under federal
law.
The
last of these instructions, that marijuana cultivation is
never legal, had drawn an objection from the defense out
of the presence of the jury as going beyond the language
of any laws. It is also curious on the facts, since the
U.S. government funds clinical marijuana research of several
types and maintains its own cultivation facility in Mississippi
for the seven patients it has remaining in the federal medical
marijuana program. (That program was closed to new patients
when the AIDS epidemic created a surge of applicants with
ailments only treatable with marijuana, such as wasting
syndrome.)
After
Judge Breyer completed his instructions to the jury, Assistant
U.S. Attorney Bevan then presented the prosecution's closing
argument. While he went on long enough to almost exceed
his time limit, he had little more to say than that he believed
the evidence was clear on the three counts the jury was
to consider: that Mr. Rosenthal had maintained a place where
marijuana was grown, or "manufactured" as the
government calls it, that he'd actually grown marijuana
there, and that he'd had some sort of agreement with Richard
Watts and Ken Hays, his indicted co-conspirators, to provide
marijuana for the Harm Reduction Center. Prosecutor Bevan
conceded that the evidence of the conspiracy charge, the
agreement between Mssrs. Rosenthal, Hays, and Watts, was
circumstantial, but claimed that the two checks introduced
into evidence and the phone calls placed by Mr. Rosenthal
to both Mr. Hays and the Harm Reduction Center, coupled
with the testimony of James Halloran and Robert Martin that
there had been some sort of arrangement for Mr. Rosenthal
to supervise plant cultivation at the Harm Reduction Center,
was more than enough to convict on the conspiracy count,
the most serious of the three.
Defense
Counsel Robert Eye then tried valiantly to present the defense's
closing argument, in spite of repeated interruptions both
by objections from the prosecution and by the judge himself,
who interjected instructions to the jury to disregard elements
of what the defense was trying to say.
Even
so, Defense Attorney Eye noted that there were many "troubling
inconsistencies" in the prosecution's case, including
garbage bags of marijuana "shake" that had been
left behind after the raid at Mr. Rosenthal's warehouse
for no apparent reason; witnesses for the prosecution who
engaged in distributing medical marijuana but had never
been arrested and were now granted immunity; a plant count
that could have been easily verified but was instead a total
mess; and lies to the jury on the part of two of the testifying
DEA agents, one of whom had curiously claimed stored marijuana
constituted a "biohazard" and another who'd testified
he'd counted plants once before and then said he'd performed
counts more than once.
Attorney
Eye told the jury that they should reject the testimony
of the two DEA agents as intentionally misleading, and that
all the problems with the case showed the DEA did not have
"their house in order." He told the jury they
should send a message that, if the government is going to
pursue prosecutions like this, they have to do it right.
Through a flurry of objections from the prosecution, he
told the jury that this was their opportunity to judge not
just Mr. Rosenthal but the government's actions, to not
just "fall into lock-step" with what the government
wanted. He told them that they'd brought to the trial life
experience and common sense and that it was right that they
apply those in deciding the case. He then suggested that
each of them had their own sense of justice and that they
should apply it in reaching their verdict.
At
which point -- arguably the most bizarre of the trial --
Judge Breyer stopped him again and addressed the jury, instructing
them that they were not to apply any personal sense of justice,
that they were not to decide if a law was unjust, but were
to follow the instructions he had given them.
Defense
Attorney Eye, who ranged from avuncular to righteously indignant
through his oft-interrupted closing argument, concluded
by telling the jurors that they had the power to acquit,
that he had confidence in them, and, finally, that he wanted
them to see justice done.
Prosecutor
Bevan used his time for rebuttal to justify why he and the
judge had interrupted so often, calling the defense's closing
argument improper. He reminded the jury they'd taken an
oath to follow the judge's instructions.
Judge
Breyer then instructed the jury for the last time not to
pay any attention to the extensive publicity surrounding
the case.
Whatever
the outcome of the jury's deliberations, which are to commence
first thing Friday and may well produce a verdict by later
in the day, it will inevitably be tinged by the extraordinary
effort Judge Breyer expended on eliminating the remarkable
number of potential jurors who could not agree to be bound
by narrow instructions on federal law.
In
the event of a conviction, the question will remain as to
what the outcome would have been if the case had been heard
by a real cross-section of citizens. An acquittal -- or
even a hung jury -- will only further emphasize the rapidly
growing consensus on legal access to medical marijuana.
Those
who have been following the development of the case will
recall that the process of selecting the jury required two
days and the calling of nearly 80 potential jurors to find
fourteen people who either had no opinions or would agree
to set aside their beliefs about the medical use of marijuana,
its criminal classification, and the conflict between 33-year-old
federal law and that passed by Californians in 1996.
The
jury is not permitted to know or consider what Mr. Rosenthal's
sentence could be in the event of conviction, but the conspiracy
charge carries a mandatory minimum of ten years in prison,
with the possibility of a life sentence and up to $4 million
in fines. The cultivation charge entails a minimum of five
years in prison, up to a maximum of 40 years and a fine
of up to $2 million. The charge related to maintaining a
place to "manufacture" marijuana could net Mr.
Rosenthal up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.
A
verdict is expected as soon as tomorrow, Friday, January
31st. Updates on the verdict, and reactions from Ed Rosenthal,
his family, and his attorneys will be posted here the same
day.
Judge
Blocks Character Witnesses in Medical Marijuana Trial
Wednesday,
January 29 -- The marijuana cultivation trial of author
and activist Ed Rosenthal resumed today in San Francisco
federal court with the testimony of several witnesses for
the prosecution, and the judge’s refusal to allow the defense
to put on the stand most of the witnesses they sought to
have testify.
Special
Agent James Sweeney of the DEA took the stand to recount
his seizure of a computer from the home of Richard Watts,
a former manager of the Harm Reduction Center in San Francisco
and one of Mr. Rosenthal’s indicted co-conspirators.
An
IRS computer specialist, Larry Murphy, then told the court
how he had retrieved a letter from the harddrive of Mr.
Watts. The letter was purportedly to Mr. Rosenthal about
some plants that were delivered to the HRC, but the agent
was unable to say if Mr. Watts had written the letter, or
if it had ever been printed out and sent.
A
witness from the IRS, Pamela Woo, testified as to a phone
number they linked to Ken Hayes, the executive director
of the Harm Reduction Center and another of Mr. Rosenthal’s
indicted co-conspirators. The records indicated that Mr.
Rosenthal had called him on three different days, for a
total the defense pointed out -- of no more than nine minutes.
They also produced four months of phone records showing
several dozen calls to the Harm Reduction Center, with an
average call length of two minutes.
Christopher
Fay, a special agent of the DEA, testified about his undercover
buy of 400+ small starter plants from the Harm Reduction
Center. He said he had no way to know where the plants had
come from, and had made no inquiries. He had never seen
Mr. Rosenthal before, and had not seen him at the HRC. He
had not counted the plants or determined if they had roots.
The
case agent for the DEA, John Pickette then told the court
that he had counted the plants and checked for roots. Defense
counsel Robert Eye noted in cross examination that there
were at least two types of growing medium present, which
Agent Pickett admitted was characteristic of different growers.
He further conceded that he had no way to know if any of
the plants purchased had come from Mr. Rosenthal, and that
no documents had been seized in any of the searches that
tied Mr. Rosenthal to the plants the undercover agent had
purchased.
The
final witness for the prosecution, Special Agent Brian Padgett
of the DEA, will return to the stand first thing on Thursday,
to conclude his testimony about plants he seized from the
Harm Reduction Center during the February 12, 2002 raids.
And with that, the prosecution will rest.
The
defense will then give its opening argument, which they
have reserved from the start of the trial. They plan on
calling an expert witness, Dan Weaver, who will dispute
the number of plants the DEA claims to have seized from
both Mr. Rosenthal’s warehouse and the Harm Reduction Center.
The prosecution contends that Mr. Rosenthal was involved
in managing the cultivation of small marijuana starter plants,
or clones, at the HRC.
Nate
Miley, formerly an Oakland City Councilmember and now an
Alameda County Supervisor, will appear on behalf of the
defense. He is expected to testify that Mr. Rosenthal was
completely open about hiw marijuana growing activities.
The
defense has also asked to put on the stand several character
witnesses, which the presiding judge in the case, Charles
Breyer, has refused to allow.
They
include Keith Stroup, the executive director of NORML, the
National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws, who was
to testify about Mr. Rosenthal’s longstanding commitment
to legal reform; Fred Gardner, formerly of the San Francisco
District Attorney’s office, who was to testify about the
city sanctioning of marijuana dispensaries and Mr. Rosenthal’s
involvement in it; and Dr. Michael Alcalay, M.D. the medical
director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Collective, who
was to testify about Mr. Rosenthal’s commitment to family
life and family values.
In
a separate matter, the defense’s final effort to get a ruling
from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to intercede in
the trial was rejected late last night. Defense attorneys
had sought to force Judge Breyer to allow them the chance
to present testimony revealing that at least one DEA supervising
agent had said that the federal government would not pursue
prosecutions in areas where the local governments were allowing
medical distribution. Judge Breyer has already ruled that
the jury will not be able to hear any such testimony.
The
trial day may well conclude tomorrow with closing arguments
from the prosecution and the defense, and instructions to
the jury. A verdict may come as early as Friday.
WHEN:
Thursday,
January 30 at 8:30 a.m.
WHERE:
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Courtroom
of Justice Charles Breyer, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate,
San Francisco, California
Government's
Attempt to Silence Activist in Medical Marijuana Trial Fails
Court
Hears Testimony on How Rosenthal Helped Patients Live Better
Lives
Thursday,
January 23, 2003 -- The U.S. government's attempt to
silence marijuana-cultivation expert and author Ed Rosenthal,
as well as his attorneys, was thwarted today in federal
court, but those assembled to hear the outcome of the latest
twist in what was already a Kafkaesque legal saga had to
wait to the end of the day for the judge's decision.
Fear
of pervasive media reports on the trial "contaminating
the jury" had yesterday prompted Assistant U.S. Attorney
George Bevan, Jr. to ask the judge to put a stop to all
press interviews until the conclusion of Mr. Rosenthal's
federal trial. Judge Charles Breyer responded yesterday
by asking Mr. Rosenthal to agree not to speak to the press,
with the added threat that -- in the event of a conviction
-- he would take Mr. Rosenthal's conduct during the trial
into account in considering the wide range of sentencing
options available - 10 years to life in prison, and up to
$6,500,000 in fines.
But
with an attorney from the San Francisco Chronicle and
a media-law expert from the First Amendment Project present
in court to argue the matter today, Judge Breyer rejected
the requested order, saying that the media attention was
part of a "legitimate public controversy" and
that the government had not made a sufficient showing that
the jury was being influenced.
But
that came at the end of the day, after court had recessed.
Today's
proceedings, which saw eight witnesses called, began with
Judge Breyer directing the prosecution to play for the jury
several minutes of videotape from the raid on Mr. Rosenthal's
Oakland cultivation facility. The video depicted DEA agents
holding up small marijuana cuttings, or clones, to demonstrate
which of them had begun to show roots. The number with roots
is of grave importance, because only cuttings with visible
root structures can be counted as plants, and federal marijuana
sentences are based on the number of plants, regardless
of size. The vast majority of the marijuana plants seized
in the raid were clones or cuttings a few inches tall, and
only a small fraction of them had roots, even by DEA accounts.
The defense is disputing the number of rooted plants the
government can prove were present.
Special
Agent Charles Taylor of the DEA was called to the stand
to testify about the plants he had helped count during the
raid. One counting sheet bearing his initials showed a number
crossed out and a different one entered, just as had a counting
sheet seen yesterday during another agent's testimony. Agent
Taylor stated under cross-examination that he had no idea
why several large garbage bags filled with marijuana clippings
had been left behind after the raid, since it was DEA policy
to seize all such contraband.
Next
up was Lesley Wilmer, the 74-year-old former landlord of
the Oakland building that housed the cultivation facility.
A retired MUNI bus driver, Mr. Wilmer testified that after
initially leasing the site, Mr. Rosenthal had bought the
building, with financing help from Mr. Wilmer. Defense attorney
Robert Eye asked Mr. Wilmer if Mr. Rosenthal had told him
that he was growing marijuana there under the authority
of the city of Oakland, but -- as with all such questions
during this trial -- a prosecution objection sustained by
the judge stopped him from answering.
IRS
Special Agent Anita Dobberstein then climbed into the witness
stand to briefly testify about two checks she had recovered
from the Rosenthal home. Made out to Ed Rosenthal from the
Harm Reduction Center and signed by Robert Martin, the checks
had been returned for insufficient funds. Agent Dobberstein
said she had neither written a report about the seizure
of the checks nor done any investigation into the circumstances
that led to their being written.
The
next witness called was a firefighter/paramedic for the
Oakland Fire Department, "German" Sierra, who
had filled out an initial fire-safety inspection report
on Mr. Rosenthal's cultivation facility. He testified that
he had been shown a valid City of Oakland business license,
and that Mr. Rosenthal had, after explaining that the marijuana
was for distribution to the local medical clubs, shown the
fire department inspectors through the building. Mr. Sierra
said that at no time had Mr. Rosenthal attempted to hide
anything or prevent them from inspecting any part of the
building. He also said that neither he nor the other Oakland
firefighters present had either commented on the marijuana
growing in the building or reported it to any law enforcement
officials. The inspection report showed that Mr. Rosenthal
had brought the building up to code.
Another
IRS Special Agent, John Wilson Baker III then came to the
stand to tell the jury about a surveillance he had carried
out with a DEA agent in which they had observed Mr. Rosenthal
leave his Oakland building with a white grocery bag and
drive to the Sixth Street Harm Reduction Center in San Francisco,
which he entered, carrying the bag. The agent couldn't say
if he'd left with the bag, nor could he say what the purpose
of the surveillance was. He did say that Mr. Rosenthal made
no attempt to hide either the bag or where he was going.
Robert
W. Martin was then compelled to testify. One of several
witnesses subpoenaed by the prosecution and forced to testify
under a grant of immunity to keep them from asserting their
fifth-amendment rights against self-incrimination, Mr. Martin
described for the jury the circumstances surrounding the
checks he had written Mr. Rosenthal (which had been seized
in the raid of the Rosenthal home), the number of times
he'd seen him at the Harm Reduction Center, and conversations
he'd had with others at the HRC about Mr. Rosenthal's involvement
with providing medicine for the patients. In answer to a
question from the judge, Mr. Martin explained that he sold
Mr. Rosenthal's clones to patients for $10 so they could
"grow their own medicine and make their lives better."
Another
grant of immunity was then issued to force the testimony
of James Joseph Kyne, who had been living on property in
Petaluma belonging to Ken Hayes and working as a volunteer
at the Harm Reduction Center at the time of the raids. Mr.
Kyne was put on the stand in an attempt to identify a particular
phone number as belonging to Mr. Hayes, the proprietor of
the HRC, but the best he could do was say he'd seen a piece
of paper with Mr. Hayes name and a phone number on it, which
the DEA had seized in raiding Mr. Hayes' home. He described
his volunteer work at the HRC as counseling patients, helping
them find housing, and the like.
Last
on the stand was John Brian Padgett, the DEA Special Agent
in charge of the search at the Harm Reduction Center. But
he'd barely gotten started on testifying about the marijuana
plants he'd found in the basement of the HRC when the court
day ended. He's scheduled to return to the stand when trial
resumes at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, January 29.
The
prosecution estimated for Judge Breyer that they have an
hour and a half left in presenting their case. The defense
will present its opening argument at that time and expects
to call at least a day's worth of witnesses. Judge Breyer
then instructed defense counsel not to try and call such
witnesses as Barbara Parker, the assistant city attorney
for Oakland; Nate Miley, a former Oakland City Councilman;
Lt. Richard Hart, the head of the Oakland Police Narcotics
unit; or anyone else who might testify -- as they all did
during pretrial hearings -- about the City of Oakland's
medical marijuana program, for which Mr. Rosenthal had been
deputized to cultivate.
Gag
Order Fight Draws First-Amendment Expert to Rosenthal Defense
Federal
Government Seeks to Silence Author of Self-Help Marijuana
Books
Wednesday,
January 22 -- Fear of frontpage newspaper articles,
radio news interviews and television reports "contaminating
the jury," prompted Assistant U.S. Attorney George
Bevan, Jr. to ask for a gag order on noted author Ed Rosenthal,
his attorneys and his family, forbidding any of them to
speak to the press until the conclusion of Mr. Rosenthal’s
trial on federal marijuana cultivation charges.
U.S.
District Judge Charles Breyer said he had never before imposed
such an order, but observed that the pervasive media attention
may be contributing to the three days of demonstrations
outside the federal courthouse. He then asked defense counsel
to get an agreement from Mr. Rosenthal not to speak to the
press.
Judge
Breyer then struck an ominous note, pointing out that he
had a wide range of possible sentences available to him
in the event of a conviction, and that he thought it appropriate
to consider the defendant’s conduct during the course of
the trial in determining what that sentence should be. If
convicted of all counts, Mr. Rosenthal faces penalties of
anywhere from ten years to life imprisonment, as well as
asset forfeiture and up to $6,500,000 in fines.
The
defense will respond to the judge’s request in court tomorrow,
but given Mr. Rosenthal’s more than 30 years of First-Amendment
activism as a writer and publisher, it is highly unlikely
that he will muzzle himself. Failing a voluntary agreement
from him, the prosecution is to present to the judge a written
sample of the sort of order they want him to impose.
Threat
of the gag order has attracted the attention of many newspapers.
The San Francisco Chronicle's First-Amendment attorney will
be in court tomorrow, along with Jim Wheaton, senior counsel
to the First Amendment Project and a media law instructor
at Stanford University, who will be there to advise the
defense. Consideration of the gag order will be at 8:00
a.m., before the jury is brought into court at 8:30.
In
today's proceeding, the defense returned to cross examining
Special Agent Daniel Tuey of the Drug Enforcement Administration
about the seizure of evidence from the Oakland facility
where the government contends Mr, Rosenthal was engaged
in growing marijuana plants for distribution to local marijuana
dispensaries. At issue was what evidence the government
could present as to the exact number of plants present,
since both of the two most serious charges -- conspiracy
to cultivate more than 1,000 marijuana plants and actual
cultivation of more than 100 -- hinge on quantity. Agent
Tuey conceded under questioning that not only did the government
destroy substantial amounts of the evidence seized, but
that they had left behind several large trash bags full
of leaf cuttings. He was also unable to identify the number
of plants, rooted or otherwise, pictured in the government’s
still photos.
Under
further questioning from prosecutor Beven, the agent claimed
that the other two videotapes made during the raid showed
each and every plant with roots, in such a way that they
might be counted, but the jury has yet to see that footage,
though they were shown video of a walk-through of the grow
facility.
DEA
Special Agent Anthony Levey was then brought in by the prosecution
to testify as to the mature “mother” plants he’d counted
during the search. Notes he had made on the number present
in each bed of plants showed at least one counting discrepancy
-- a number crossed out and another entered -- which he
conceded was the result of error, saying some of the beds
had been counted more than once because he and another agent
had disagreed as to the number of plants present. He testified
further that he did not know if he had ever counted such
plants before -- he thought maybe he had -- but he had certainly
not done so since. He could not identify any of the dried
plant material entered into evidence as being plants he
had counted or cut, nor could he provide or identify any
photos showing how many plants were in the room he had been
responsible for counting.
Ed
Rosenthal's Federal Trial Begins
Feds
May Falter on Pot Plant Count
Tuesday,
January 21 -- In the midst of a minor media blitz, the
cultivation trial of marijuana activist and noted author
Ed Rosenthal got underway in San Francisco federal court
today. Assistant U.S. Attorney George Bevan outlined the
case against the man known as the foremost expert on marijuana
growing, without actually discussing what Mr. Rosenthal
was doing -- providing small starter clones of high-potency
female plants to local marijuana dispensaries for distribution
to qualified patients. The result was a disjointed opening
argument. After a preliminary discussion with judge about
whether the purpose of Mr. Rosenthal’s activities could
be mentioned -- it couldn’t -- the defense elected to reserve
its opening argument for after the prosecution completed
presenting its case.
First
on the stand was the ailing James Halloran, 61, one of Mr.
Rosenthal’s indicted co-conspirators and a former racquetball
partner, who testified about the marijuana-growing activities
he began immediately after California passed the Compassionate
Use Act, otherwise known as Prop 215, in 1996. According
to Mr. Halloran, he entered into a partnership with Mr.
Rosenthal in late 1997 or early 1998 to produce marijuana
for the local medical clubs, before going their separate
growing ways about a year later, though he continued to
buy small clones and cuttings from Mr. Rosenthal until the
time of their arrest.
Mr.
Halloran also told the court that he was testifying in exchange
for a more lenient sentence in his guilty plea to cultivation
and money-laundering charges, charges he told the jury would
otherwise have resulted in a 50-year mandatory minimum with
the possibility of a triple life sentence upon conviction.
While this appears to be an overstatement designed to cast
his decision to rat out a friend and former partner in a
more favorable light, it nonetheless introduced to the jury
the seriousness of the consequences facing Mr. Rosenthal,
should they choose to convict.
Defense
attorney Robert Eye also elicited testimony from Mr. Halloran
concerning an extraordinary provision of his plea agreement
with the government, allowing him to seek dismissal of the
conviction at such time as the federal law on marijuana
is either determined to be unconstitutional or repealed
by Congress.
Next
on the stand was an electrician who detailed work he’d done
at Mr. Rosenthal’s direction to ensure safety and bring
the marijuana cultivation facility into compliance with
city of Oakland building codes, at a cost of roughly $7,500.
Under questioning from the defense, he described the inspection
of the facility by the Oakland Fire Department, emphasizing
the complete lack of interest on the part of officials in
the small marijuana plants that filled the building.
The
last witness of the day was DEA Special Agent Daniel Tuey,
who had supervised the February 2002 raid on the cultivation
facility. As part of his testimony, the prosecution played
a videotape the agent made and narrated during the raid,
showing several small rooms containing "mother"
plants, young clones and fresh cuttings, as well as various
items tacked to the walls, including a bumpersticker that
read "Thank you for pot smoking" and a newspaper
article that appeared to be about the 6th Street Harm Reduction
Center providing medical marijuana for the most seriously
ill patients. The prosecution also introduced into evidence
one grow light and ballast, one large corroded fan, and
a few medium-sized bags of dead marijuana cuttings. The
rest of the evidence seized, the agent conceded under defense
questioning, had been destroyed.
The
defense had, in fact, only begun its cross-examination of
Agent Tuey when the court day drew to a close, but defense
attorney Robert Eye nonetheless extracted testimony highlighting
the fact that no local law enforcement had either participated
in the raid itself or delivered any information to the DEA
about Mr. Rosenthal’s operation. To further make the point,
Mr. Eye questioned the agent about the Oakland Fire Department’s
building-inspection report, which the DEA had seized in
the raid. With the report projected on a screen for the
court to see, Mr. Eye asked Agent Tuey about a three-word
note scrawled across the top of the form, apparently written
by the inspecting Oakland Fire Department officer. "Can
you tell us what that note says?" Mr. Eye asked. "Doesn’t
it say ‘Don’t get caught’?"
After
the jury had been dismissed for the day, presiding judge
Charles Breyer vented his displeasure with the defense’s
line of questioning regarding the attitude of local officials,
as well as the time spent by both prosecution and defense
counsels on the matter of how many of the plants seized
were either rooted or not. He asked the attorneys to come
to an agreement about a range of numbers -- more than x
but less than y -- rather than take up too much time arguing
over a precise count. Yet the number of viable plants is
germane to the specific charge of cultivating more than
100 marijuana plants. The defense believes the prosecution
will be unable to produce any such number of plants.
Then
came what may prove to be the day’s most significant moment,
in which Judge Breyer quashed the defense subpoena of one
of the DEA agents who had participated in the raid. Mike
Heald, the former supervising agent from Sonoma County was
being called to testify, outside the presence of the jury,
about comments he’d made to a colleague of Mr. Rosenthal’s
regarding the DEA’s policy on prosecutions in California.
The colleague, Mary Pat Jacobs, who runs the Sonoma Alliance
for Medical Marijuana, claimed in a declaration provided
to the court that Agent Heald had told her that it was policy
to follow the lead of local authorities in determining whether
or not to prosecute those cultivating medical marijuana
under Prop 215 guidelines. Ms. Jacobs had relayed that conversation
to Mr. Rosenthal, who had relied upon it, in addition to
the numerous assurances of local officials, in concluding
that his cultivation of marijuana plants on behalf of medical
patients would be immune from federal prosecution.
The
quashing of the subpoena of Agent Heald is of particular
significance to the defense argument that the prosecution
of Mr. Rosenthal is a case of "entrapment by estoppel,"
in which officials tell an individual that their conduct
is legal and then try to prosecute them for it. In rejecting
this argument, Judge Breyer made much of the fact that,
while Mr. Rosenthal could reasonably have believed he was
immune, the defense had not produced a key element in that
defense: any federal government official or agent who’s
said as much. Now the federal agent who might have testified
to exactly that will not be permitted to appear.
Jury
Seated in Federal Medical Marijuana Trial of Ed Rosenthal
Proceedings
begin Tuesday, January 21st in U.S. District Court
Wednesday,
January 15, 2003 - The jury was
finally selected today in the federal marijuana-cultivation
trial of best-selling author and activist Ed Rosenthal.
It took an unprecedented two days -- the first of which
saw half the prospective jurors excused because of their
strong feelings about the legalization of Marijuana, their
experiences with its medical use, or their frustration with
federal interference in state laws -- but twelve jurors
and two alternates were empaneled by Federal District Court
Judge Charles Breyer to begin hearing the case next Tuesday,
January 21st, following the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.
Prospective
jurors were again questioned about their feelings and beliefs
related to marijuana, and the court was again filled with
poignant stories of family members who had sought relief
from the symptoms of HIV or cancer through the use of medical
marijuana. Potential jurors also took the opportunity to
denounce the federal laws on marijuana as "grotesque,"
to question the imposition of jail time for marijuana offences,
and to suggest that the medicinal use of marijuana was a
matter for science not the courts.
Even
Judge Breyer acknowledged that the cultivation of marijuana
for use by patients may be the "noble" thing to
do, the "humane" and right thing. But he repeatedly
reminded the prospective jurors that he would be instructing
them that marijuana cultivation was a federal crime no matter
what the purpose, and to sit on the jury they had to be
willing to set aside their conclusions or beliefs and follow
his instructions, even if they believed he was wrong about
the law, or the law itself was unjust.
Many
of those called declined to be bound by such instructions,
but, ultimately, 14 people agreed.
Expected
to last two weeks, trial commences Tuesday, January 21,
2003 at 8:30 a.m. in U.S. District Court, Northern District
of California, Courtroom of Justice Charles Breyer, 19th
Floor, 450 Golden Gate, San Francisco, California.
Judge
Excuses Half the Jury Pool in Federal Trial of Ed Rosenthal
Potential
Jurors Speak Out In Favor of Medical Marijuana, Legalization,
and States' Rights
Tuesday,
January 14, 2003 -- In what one
defense attorney called the most remarkable day of jury
selection he’d ever witnessed, half of the 50 potential
jurors in the marijuana-cultivation trial of best-selling
author and activist Ed Rosenthal were excused by the judge
for cause. Even small-town murder trials where everyone
knows everyone and emotions run high will see at most one
or two jurors excused as being unable to give the proceeding
a fair hearing.
Asked
by Judge Charles Breyer if they had strong feelings on the
legalization of marijuana, the legality of medical marijuana,
or the conflict between federal law and California’s voter
initiative, Proposition 215, legalizing the medical use
of marijuana, juror after juror either regaled the court
with poignant anecdotes about how they or someone they knew
used or had recommended to them medical marijuana, gave
voice to passionate feelings about the need to legalize
marijuana for all use, or expressed deep distaste for federal
interference in California’s laws. That these views were
expressed by what appeared to be a representative cross-section
of the Bay Area’s populace was perhaps less surprising than
that they were willing to give voice to such a call for
reform at all, since potential jurors normally understate
the strength of their views when speaking in front of strangers,
for fear of how their peers might react.
At
the end of the day, the judge called for another pool of
50 to be presented tomorrow morning and guaranteed completion
of selection by lunchtime. Of those jurors who can get past
the judge’s questions, the defense is permitted to challenge
ten and the prosecution six, so at least five more potential
jurors are needed to seat twelve and two alternates.
The
defense today also presented additional case authority in
support of their pretrial motion on entrapment by estoppel,
which argued that because local authorities had established
a program to extend federal immunity from prosecution to
those such as Rosenthal who were deputized to implement
the city of Oakland’s medical marijuana ordinance, and had
told him he would be protected, he should not now be prosecuted.
The judge said the additional cases cited in support of
that argument would be considered.
Jury
selection continues at 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 15,
in U.S. District Court, with trial commencing on Tuesday,
January 21, 2003.
No
Talk of "Medical" to be Allowed in Federal Medical
Marijuana Trial of Ed Rosenthal
Judge
Grants Prosecution Motion to Exclude State Law, City Programs,
Federal Immunity Statute
Monday,
January 13, 2003 - Despite passionate
pleas from defense attorney Robert Eye for consideration
of the context of marijuana activist and author Ed Rosenthal’s
involvement in carrying out the City of Oakland’s program
for supplying medicinal marijuana, Federal Judge Charles
Breyer ruled in favor of the prosecution’s motion to exclude
all discussion of medical issues, the City of Oakland’s
marijuana ordinance, California’s Compassionate Use Act
legalizing medical marijuana (Prop 215), and the like.
Defense
attorneys had hoped to present the jury with a picture of
Rosenthal’s participation in the city program Oakland had
implemented to enact Prop 215, including testimony from
the Oakland City Attorney’s office concerning the legal
opinion given to the City Council that federal statute provided
immunity from federal prosecution for city officials participating
in their medical marijuana program, how the city had expressly
provided for deputizing Rosenthal and others as officers
of the city so as to shield them from prosecution, and how
Rosenthal’s actions were not just sanctioned and supervised
by city officials intent on enforcing the law passed by
California’s voters but that Council member Nate Miley,
now an Alameda County Supervisor, had visited Rosenthal’s
facility and blessed it.
But
without direct evidence of a federal official actively doing
or saying something to convey that immunity, the judge said
he would not allow any such evidence -- though he said that
he might allow Rosenthal to testify before the jury as to
his state of mind and the basis for his decisions, granting
that it was reasonable for Rosenthal to have relied on the
statements of city and state officials in forming his belief
that he would not be prosecuted for helping medical marijuana
patients become self-sufficient.
As
another of Rosenthal’s attorneys, Bill Simpich, put it,
this shut the door on the defense strategy without quite
locking it. Simpich insists that the defense will be able
to produce the missing key evidence showing direct federal
action acknowledging the statutory immunity under 885d of
the Controlled Substances Act that informed both the city
of Oakland’s approach to distributing medical marijuana
and Rosenthal’s decision to participate.
Judge
Breyer also outlined the approach he intends to take in
selecting a jury, to the detriment of the defense. Anyone
with strong feelings about the legalization of marijuana,
the legality of medical marijuana, or the appropriateness
of California voters deciding issues on regulating for their
own health and welfare will be excused from the jury, unless
than can promise to put aside those feelings and follow
the judge’s instructions on federal law and how they are
to apply it.
With
public opinion even more strongly in support of legal use
of medical marijuana than at the time of 215’s passage in
1996, it’s no wonder that the judge would schedule four
days for finding 14 northern California jurors willing to
set aside their own beliefs and the law of their state in
favor of imprisoning for a mandatory minimum of ten years
someone daring to assist the sick and dying in growing a
medicinal herb.
Jury
selection begins at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, January 14, in U.S.
District Court, with trial commencing on Tuesday, January
21, 2003.
Final
Defense Motions Denied; Jury Selection Moved Up Further
Judge
Refuses to Dismiss Charges Against Rosenthal; Difficulty
of Finding a Jury Willing to Convict Advances Trial Calendar
Yet Again
Thursday,
January 9, 2003 - Fear of jury nullification and public
opinion polls showing that 80% of Americans think medical
marijuana should be legally available were the reasons Judge
Charles Breyer gave for moving up the jury selection process
yet again in the federal trial of activist and author Ed
Rosenthal. Only one day after rescheduling jury selection
in the case to next Thursday, the judge moved it up even
further, to Tuesday January 14th, saying he was concerned
about being able to seat a jury that "passes Constitutional
muster" in being able to "render both sides a
fair trial," because such a large percentage of people
may view the prosecution of Rosenthal as unfair. A discussion
of how that jury is to be selected is now scheduled for
Monday at 3:00 p.m. in Judge Breyer's courtroom, with selection
to begin the next day at 8:30 a.m.
This
scheduling change followed Judge Breyer's ruling denying
the remaining defense motion to dismiss the charges based
on immunity or entrapment. Defense attorneys argued that
because Rosenthal had been deputized by the City of Oakland
to provide medical marijuana and believed himself to have
been immune to federal prosecution, the federal government's
case was a form of entrapment. Several Oakland officials
testified today in support of that argument.
The
court heard from Barbara Parker, the Assistant City Attorney
for the city of Oakland, who said that the city's intent
in passing its medical marijuana ordinance had been to make
individuals participating in their program immune to prosecution.
Similar
testimony was offered by Nate Miley, a former Oakland City
Council member now serving on the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors, who had participated in needle exchange programs,
enacted the medical marijuana ordinance, and (as Rosenthal
testified) visited the cultivation facility with his aide
and "literally blessed it."
Miley
and Parker both stated that despite extensive media publicity
about their attempts to provide a legal haven for the distribution
of medical marijuana, as directed by California's Compassionate
Use Act, Proposition 215, they were never contacted by any
federal official advising them that they were violating
federal law, or encouraging others to violate federal law
, and that prosecutions could result.
They
were joined on the stand by Lt. Richard Hart, the head of
Oakland Police Department's Narcotics Division, who testified
that while he worked closely with the DEA under a memo of
understanding and supervised cooperative efforts between
their agents and his officers, he was also participating
in the meetings of the Working Group assigned to implement
Prop. 215. He was never told by federal officials that there
was or would be any problems with the program he was helping
develop to ensure safe, affordable access to medical marijuana
for patients who needed it.
Rosenthal's
trial on federal charges stemming from his participation
in that program is scheduled to begin Tuesday, January 21,
in U.S. District Court.
