SACRAMENTO, CA -- Things went from bad to worse last week for federal medical marijuana defendants Jeffre Sanderson and Alice Wiegand. What looked like a solid plea bargain started to unravel right before the scheduled sentencing, as the prosecutor began to back out of agreements he had made in the deal. As it stands now, the defendants’ fate hinges on an evidentiary hearing that will feature the claims of a disillusioned former friend of the defendants. What began as the common story of a soured relationship between rural neighbors has become serious indeed – if found credible, accusations that the defendants sold marijuana could cost them dearly.
Of course, the couple has already had a fair share of tough times. Sanderson has been locked up in Sacramento County Jail for nearly half a year, and Wiegand faces her own legal fallout, including the impending forfeiture of her home and a charge for conspiring to cultivate marijuana. To make it worse, their two small sons were taken by Child Protective Services, and are going through their early developmental years apart from their parents.
And all of this came about, as Sanderson’s attorney says, because a Plumas County task force happened to spot the marijuana grow while on a different surveillance mission in July 2006. As occurs far too often, the resulting criminal case was passed from the county courthouse to the federal one, stripping the defendants of the protection of California’s medical marijuana laws.
Given these circumstances, Sanderson and Wiegand decided to choose what they considered the least of all evils – they settled on a plea agreement with the United States government. Hoping for a light sentence and the quickest way to regain custody of their sons, the defendants took a plea deal on November 5th, 2007. Wiegand pled guilty to a conspiracy count and Sanderson pled guilty to the cultivation of marijuana. But when it comes to exactly how much marijuana is involved in this case, no one seems to know for sure.
The plea agreement states that a total amount of 60 kilograms of marijuana was seized from the defendants’ property, but this number is a compromise, and the actual plant count is a matter of dispute. The sheriff’s deputies who did surveillance on the property reported “several dozen” and Sanderson claimed he kept his garden under a hundred plants, but the federal government initially charged the defendants for the cultivation of 220 plants. It’s a mystery that may never get solved, as the plants themselves no longer exist – according to the statement of facts in the plea deal, “law enforcement officers dried and trimmed 60 kg. of marijuana leaves and bud.” Under federal rules, everything except the stalk of the plant counts in the determination of the quantity – leaves, stems and seeds all weigh against a defendant. For a professional farmer like Sanderson, it can add up fast, accelerating towards possible mandatory minimum sentences.
In this case, however, Sanderson and Wiegand avoided that danger by taking the plea bargain. Even though it required them to waive their right to a grand jury indictment and agree to the forfeiture of their home, it was still an appealing deal because of what it offered regarding sentencing. Not only did it allow the defendants to avert mandatory minimum prison terms, but the deal also stated that they would not be fined at sentencing – a comforting assurance, given that Sanderson and Wiegand were both facing million-dollar fines. The prosecutor’s end of the agreement was that he would recommend the low end of the applicable sentencing range for each charge, and that he would not oppose a three-level reduction in both defendants’ sentences.
A plea deal is not a promise, and the judge gave the mandatory reminders of this fact during the change of plea hearing, but the defendants still had every reason to believe the agreement would be followed. In fact, they had some very big hopes riding on their scheduled March 3rd sentencing hearing. Wiegand anticipated that, along with the forfeiture, she would be given only a period of probation. And even though Sanderson is currently incarcerated for cultivating marijuana while out on bail, he hoped that the prosecutor’s sentencing recommendations would pave the way to the judge handing down a term of time already served.
These were optimistic expectations, admittedly, but even the most cynical of observers couldn’t have anticipated that the case would get derailed so suddenly.
Alice Wiegand and Jeffre Sanderson hold their two young sons, Jahson and Jamie, while participating in a ceremony of blessing for their family. Due to forfeiture proceedings, the family's home will soon become the property of the U.S. government.
The defendants’ high hopes had been warranted, according to their attorneys, because of the government’s failure to show that Sanderson sold the marijuana he grew. This factor, said defense attorney Tim Zindel, greatly improved Sanderson’s chances for a lenient sentence. “The evidence in Jeff’s case…showed a lack of any profit motive,” Zindel remarked. “Indeed, no evidence shows that Jeff ever made a dime from cultivating cannabis.”
But, right before the scheduled sentencing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Beckwith declared that he had uncovered evidence of sales and requested a hearing so he could present it. The prosecutor would be relying on claims made in a negative letter received by the court, in which Sanderson was accused of selling marijuana. Zindel promptly announced his client’s belief that the letter’s author was a disgruntled neighbor, and Beckwith tacitly confirmed that identification. It had become the prosecutor’s mission to get this witness up on the stand and on record.
Zindel fought zealously to block Beckwith’s motion, claiming that it rested on false grounds and did not provide adequate justification for an evidentiary hearing. The defense attorney maintained that the allegations against his client were nothing new – the witness in question had made the same claims during an interview she gave to law enforcement at the time of the defendants’ bust. Therefore, Zindel contended, the witness’s statements had been in the case discovery ever since Beckwith provided him with the police reports back in September 2006.
“It’s new to me,” said Judge C. Damrell, Jr., pointing a finger vigorously at himself.
Beckwith jumped in at that point, defending his motion and denying Zindel’s assessment. “The witness is supplying new information that’s not in these reports,” he told the judge.
The decision seemed already set, but even though the deck was stacked against him, Zindel wasn’t going to take it sitting down. “There should at least be some basis of reliability,” he argued to the judge, then gestured to his copy of the prosecution’s motion. “This, on its face, provides double and triple hearsay.”
Judge Damrell appeared irritated by the defense attorney’s challenge. “I’m entitled to hear the evidence if I think it’s appropriate,” he reminded Zindel pointedly. “If it’s not relevant, I’ll disregard it, but I’m not going to pre-judge anything. I’m not going to make a decision until I hear the evidence.”
As the judge proceeded to set a date for the evidentiary hearing, Zindel took the opportunity to push a little bit more. He had only begun to ask about renewing Sanderson’s bail motion when Judge Damrell interrupted, flustered enough that he was beginning to stutter. “We’re talking about a very brief period of time here – I don’t understand…what’s the urgency?” the judge grappled, his forehead wrinkling in perplexity as he mumbled more denials. “I wouldn’t grant bail…He had a violation during supervised release…I don’t think your request makes sense.”
Zindel then suggested that Judge Damrell didn’t understand the request because he had failed to read the sentencing memorandum the defense submitted. This comment, it seemed, tread right on the judge’s toes…and he let his displeasure be known with a vociferous lecture.
“Your confidence, sir, is misplaced,” Judge Damrell boomed down from his bench at the defense attorney. “Your client could spend the next 30 months in prison. I’m going to sentence based on the guidelines and the statutes. You’re so sure I’m going to grant probation! I don’t understand that.”
Trying to break in during a pause in the judge’s speech, Zindel barely managed to articulate another sound. Judge Damrell shot him a look of severe warning in return for the half-uttered monosyllable, and then continued announcing his authority. “You’re not the person to make that decision,” the judge told Zindel sternly. “I’m the person who makes that decision.”
At that, Judge Damrell ended the hearing and walked down from his bench. He seemed agitated, but he nonetheless conveyed a sense of satisfaction that he had adequately asserted his supremacy. As he exited to his chambers, he left the defendants in a state of anxious anticipation, unable to predict what would await them at their next hearing. In a case gone awry, with feuding neighbors poised and eager to take the witness stand, the outcome could be anybody’s guess.
Jeffre Sanderson and Alice Wiegand are set to appear in court for an evidentiary hearing at 9am on March 19th, 2008. They are also scheduled for a possible sentencing at that time. All proceedings will be held in Courtroom 2 on the 15th floor at 501 I Street in Sacramento, CA.
Be first to comment this article
Only registered users can write comments. Please login or register.
Court Reports 
Be first to comment this article
