Ed Rosenthal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ed Rosenthal (born Bronx, New York, 1944) is a California horticulturist, author, publisher, and cannabis grower. He was arrested in 2002 for cultivation of cannabis by federal authorities, who do not recognize the authority of states to allow the use of medical cannabis. He was convicted in a controversial trial presided over by Federal District Court Judge Charles Breyer. Rosenthal briefly attended Youngstown State University in Youngstown, Ohio. He has two children, Nick and Justine.
[edit] Trial
During his trial, the jury was not permitted to know that Rosenthal was growing marijuana for medical patients. It is speculated that in California, a state which had voted 55% to make medical marijuana legal, the defense and prosecution believed jurors would be unlikely to agree unanimously to find Rosenthal guilty if evidence of the users were known. Judge Breyer consistently ruled to prevent the jury from hearing the truth about Rosenthal's clients, deeming it "irrelevant under federal law" and prejudicial. During the trial, many patients, including many in wheelchairs, packed the courtroom's gallery. It is reported that the jury did not connect the members of the gallery to Rosenthal, and convicted Rosenthal, believing that he was a large-scale illegal drug dealer. The trial in front of the jury revolved around technical details of whether the hundreds of tiny "cloned" plants were mere plant cuttings, or had developed tiny root structures and thus would count as independent "plants", since the severity of the sentence depends on the number of "plants".
Only days after announcing their verdict, seven of the 12 jurors who had convicted Rosenthal held a public press conference in which they denounced their verdict and expressed their outrage. (One of the two alternate jurors also joined them.) After reading newspaper coverage of the case, which they had been barred from doing during the trial, they had discovered that they had apparently been lied to on the judge's orders. One juror broke down in tears for hours when she discovered that she had convicted an (arguably) innocent man. Judge Breyer had also refused to allow the defense team to mention that Rosenthal was deputized by the city of Oakland, California to grow cannabis as a supply for medical marijuana patients. Rosenthal had been led by Oakland authorities to believe that he was immune from prosecution. The Drug Enforcement Administration denies having told the Oakland City Council that Rosenthal was immune from prosecution.
Rosenthal was ultimately sentenced to a single day in prison, which he had already served in jail after his initial arrest. Judge Breyer justified this radical departure from the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for growing more than 100 marijuana plants by pointing out the uncertainty about whether Rosenthal's actions were legal or illegal (while also stating that any future defendants should receive the full penalty). This sentence was widely seen as a sop to public opinion after the jury's public outrage. The government appealed, seeking a longer sentence; Rosenthal also appealed, seeking to overturn his felony conviction. The appeals have been on hold pending the outcome of Gonzales v. Raich, and on June 6, 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in that case that the federal government could constitutionally ban states from legalizing medical marijuana.
Defense attorneys also uncovered information that may lead to a new trial. Juror Marney Craig asked a friend of hers, a lawyer, if she had to follow Judge Breyer's instructions to convict on the fact of Rosenthal's commitment of the crime, and not on the fairness of the law that makes his actions criminal. Her friend told her that she did have to follow the judge's instructions, and she told another juror, Pamela Klarkowski. The defense attorneys have argued that this outside information tainted the jurors, inasmuch as it is inaccurate; under the principle of jury nullification, jurors can vote not to convict on the basis of the law being unfair and, in fact, can never be required, by a judge or anyone else, to divulge the reasons behind their vote.
On April 26, 2006, the Ninth Circuit overturned the felony conviction of Ed Rosenthal, finding juror misconduct compromised his right to a fair trial. However, some close to the case believe that the Government may cause still another trial to occur.
