Cannabis Yields And Dosage
Cannabis Yields And Dosage is the authoritative study of the science and legalities of calculating medical marijuana. By Chris Conrad
|
Home  Court Reports CHC Jury Receives Instructions for Deliberating CHC Case
|
Jury Receives Instructions for Deliberating CHC Case |
|
|
|
|
Written by Vanessa Nelson
|
|
Tuesday, May 13 2008 |
FRESNO, CA -- Jurors were about to be handed the case of former medical marijuana dispensary operators Luke Scarmazzo and Ricardo Montes, whose federal trial had consumed the past two weeks. Judge Wanger, who was poised to deliver instructions for the deliberations, had no light task in front of him. The defendants, who formerly operated the California Healthcare Collective, faced several criminal charges that required many elements of proof. Detailing each count would prove to be a lengthy and tedious process, but a necessary one nonetheless.
The first part of the Judge Wanger’s speech consisted of standard, all-purpose instructions. He told the jurors that it was their duty to follow the law as he stated it, whether they agreed with that law or not. He also warned them not to be influenced by their likes and dislikes, or by their prejudices and sympathies. They were only to consider the evidence in the case, which included sworn testimony, admitted exhibits, and facts that had been stipulated by both parties. The government had the burden here, the judge affirmed, and the prosecutors were required to prove every element of every charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Statements became increasingly more specific as Judge Wanger progressed through the instruction. “You have heard evidence that Luke Scarmazzo has been convicted of a felony,” he said to the jurors. “You can consider this when deciding whether to believe the defendant, or how much weight to give the testimony of the defendant.”
Conversely, the judge warned the jury not to be unduly skeptical of the police witnesses who had done undercover work in the case. “Law enforcement officers are not precluded from engaging in stealth and deception,” he asserted. Their tactics may include using false identities or becoming a member of a group for deceitful purposes, the judge elaborated, and this should not bias the jury about the agents’ truthfulness on the witness stand.
With these concerns adequately addressed, it was time to explain the relevant criminal counts in detail. As Judge Wanger explained, the jury was required to return five verdicts for both Scarmazzo and Montes. These counts covered a time period leading up to the September 2006 raids on the CHC and several other associated properties.
• Count 1 – Running a continuing criminal enterprise between October 2004 through September 2006.
• Count 2 – Conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, distribute marijuana, and possess marijuana with the intent to distribute.
• Count 3 – Manufacture (cultivation) of marijuana.
• Count 7 – Possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute.
• Count 8 – Possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, relating to the gun found in the safe at the CHC.
In addition to these counts, the jury was instructed to return another three verdicts that applied to Montes only. Two of them were for possession with the intent to distribute, stemming from the five pounds of marijuana allegedly seized from Montes’s home and from his vehicle on July 21st, 2006. The third count was for possession of firearms in the furtherance of a drug crime, relating to guns seized from the kitchen and bedroom of Montes’s house on that date.
According to the judge’s instructions, the continuing criminal enterprise count was complex and required the government to prove several facts:
• First, the prosecutors needed to show that the defendant committed at least one of the felony narcotics violations charged in the other counts. For both Scarmazzo and Montes, this could be fulfilled with a guilty verdict for conspiracy in Count 2, manufacturing in Count 3, or possession with the intent to distribute in Count 7. For Montes alone, this requirement could also be met with a guilty verdict on the possession charges from July 2006.
• Once the defendant was proven guilty on one of these counts, it was then compulsory for the government to show that the crime had been part of a series of three or more felony violations. In order to complete this step in the process, the jurors had to unanimously agree on which acts made up these three felony violations.
• Thirdly, the government had to prove that the defendant committed the offenses with the involvement of five or more persons. As in the previous step, it was necessary for the jurors to decide on which five people had been involved. This group of five, the judge advised, did not have to all be involved at the same time in order to qualify as participants.
• Once the five other individuals had been unanimously agreed upon, the jury would have to find that the defendant acted in the role of an organizer, supervisor or manager of these people. As the judge clarified, there could be more than one person functioning as a manager. Also, he said, the relationship between the manager and each participant could vary in nature and scope.
• Finally, a guilty verdict for continuing criminal enterprise required the government to show that substantial income or resources were obtained from these activities. According to the judge, the exact amount of money or resources did not have to be known or stated by the jury.
The proof required for the other counts, however, was fairly straightforward. A guilty verdict on the conspiracy charge, for example, only needed two pieces of proof. One was that there had been an agreement between two or more people to manufacture marijuana, distribute marijuana, and possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. The second requirement was that the defendant became a member of the conspiracy while knowing at least one of its goals and taking a step toward accomplishing this goal. The success of the conspiracy, and whether the defendant knew all the goals of the conspiracy, were declared by the judge to be irrelevant considerations. However, if a guilty verdict was given on the conspiracy count, the jury would be required to make a unanimous finding about the number of marijuana plants that the conspiracy involved.
The manufacturing count, as it turned out, was most applicable to the growsite discovered in the Hughson residence. It called for the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intentionally manufactured marijuana, an act that could include anything from planting a marijuana seed to cultivating and harvesting the plant. This count also required evidence that the defendant knew that the substance was marijuana or some other prohibited drug. For a guilty verdict, the government didn’t need to prove a specific quantity of marijuana beyond what was merely detectable. As with the conspiracy charge, though, a unanimous decision about a plant count was necessary following a finding of guilt on the manufacturing count. And, just to clear up any potential confusion, Judge Wanger told the jurors, “A marijuana plant has been manufactured once it has roots, stems and leaves, and is viable.”
To prove the possession of marijuana for distribution, the government had to show that the defendant knowingly possessed marijuana with the intent to deliver it to another person. This transfer, the judge emphasized, did not have to involve a financial exchange in order to qualify as distribution. He also took this opportunity to remind the jurors that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under United States law.
Possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime was, as one might intuit, dependant on a guilty verdict in one of the other drug-related counts. The government also had to show that the firearm was possessed knowingly and with the intent of furthering the drug crime. As the judge put it, this meant that the intended use of the firearm was related to the facilitation or promotion of the drug-selling operation.
Although the elements to be proven were numerous, they appeared to be relatively straightforward. There was, however, room for a catch or two. As the judge explained to the jury, “Each member of the conspiracy is responsible for the acts of the others in the conspiracy.” If the defendant aided and abetted a person in the commission of a crime, or if the person acted through the defendant to commit the crime, the defendant was to be found guilty of the crime.
Wrapping up, Judge Wanger listed defenses that were not permitted in this case. The defendants’ reliance on the advice of counsel was not to be considered when determining guilt or innocence, nor were any assertions regarding medical marijuana. The evidence indicating medical use, the judge maintained, had been admitted solely for the purposes of showing how the business was set up, and not as a defense to the criminal charges.
“You cannot consider claims that the alleged marijuana plants were manufactured or possessed with the intent to distribute due to medical purposes,” Judge Wanger said as he concluded the jury instructions. “Under federal law, marijuana is illegal for any reason.”
And with that final declaration, command of the jurors’ ears was transferred to the attorneys for their closing arguments.
 Be first to comment this article | |
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. |
|
|
