Cannabis Yields And Dosage
Cannabis Yields And Dosage is the authoritative study of the science and legalities of calculating medical marijuana. By Chris Conrad
|
|
Scarmazzo & Montes to be Re-Tried on Conspiracy Charge, ASAP |
|
|
|
|
Written by Vanessa Nelson
|
|
Monday, June 09 2008 |
FRESNO, CA -- Luke Scarmazzo and Ricardo Montes were tried in federal court only a month ago, but according to a new announcement from the U.S. Attorney’s office, the two men will have at least one more trial in federal court. And due to a surprise move from the defense, the proceedings could begin as soon as this August.
Although they reached verdicts on eleven other counts, the jurors deadlocked when it came to the charges for conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, distribute marijuana, and possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. Since the jury failed to return these verdicts, prosecutors had the option of re-trying the defendants on the conspiracy counts alone. There was widespread doubt that the government would choose to devote its resources to such an action, but during a recent court hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen Servatius declared that she will prosecute the defendants again for conspiracy.
The bigger bombshell, however, came from the other side of the courtroom. As the attorneys negotiated a date for the next status hearing, Scarmazzo threw off their schedule by refusing to waive his right to a speedy trial. “I’m not waiting in jail another year to go back to trial on that one charge,” he explained later about his reasoning.
However, as Servatius argued, the defendants may not have the right to a speedy trial in this instance. It’s a complex set of circumstances, given that the defense has already requested a re-trial for the whole case. That motion is pending, scheduled for a ruling in mid-August. This means that, if the defendants are granted a speedy trial on the conspiracy charges, those proceedings could be over before the defense’s re-trial motion is even decided. Attorneys on both sides must get these matters sorted out before June 16th, at which time Judge Oliver Wanger will decide whether the right to a speedy trial is precluded by the circumstances of what has recently become a complicated and perplexing case.
The whole thing stems from the bust of the California Healthcare Collective, the medical marijuana dispensary Scarmazzo and Montes operated in the city of Modesto between late 2004 and late 2006. Like many similar facilities across California, the CHC was caught between a state law that permits medical marijuana and a federal law that prohibits it. However, the CHC was also operating in unfriendly territory, where city and county government expressed a hostility that mirrored federal prohibition. The local police were all too eager to join up with federal agents, and this cooperation yielded a massive investigation of the CHC and its operators. After several undercover operations, the search of numerous residences and vehicles, and the arrest of nine associated individuals, the CHC was finally shut down in September 2006.
Scarmazzo and Montes were left facing an indictment on a long list of charges, but they refused to take plea deals offered by the government. By proceeding with their case, they became the defendants in the first federal trial of medical marijuana dispensary operators. Scarmazzo and Montes were also some of the youngest defendants to be prosecuted by the federal government for medical marijuana. In fact, they had been too young to vote in 1996, when Californians passed an initiative that legalized medical marijuana statewide. They may have been born too late in some regards, but when their trial began in late April 2008, Scarmazzo and Montes were poised to make history.
Other medical marijuana trials on the federal level have been focused primarily on charges related to cultivation, and the overwhelming trend has been for judges to rule that evidence about medical marijuana cannot be presented to a jury. Since Scarmazzo and Montes were charged with continuing criminal enterprise, however, Judge Wanger ruled that the dispensary’s business documents could be presented as a defense…and when it came to corporate paperwork, the CHC had truckloads of documents that clearly stated it was operating as a medical marijuana dispensary in compliance with state law. After seeing all this documentation, however, the jury was instructed to consider only federal law and to disregard all mentions of state law.
This situation led to a moral conflict for some on the jury, heightening to the point that one juror asked to be excused only an hour into the deliberations. His recently-deceased wife had used marijuana during her illness, he disclosed, and he simply couldn’t live with himself if he convicted the defendants. He was excused and replaced with an alternate, and deliberations began again anew. Although some of the other jurors had qualms of conscience, as they described later, they soothed their conflicts with inaccurate and legally inappropriate speculation about the consequences of guilty verdicts.
Craig Will and Larry Silva, two jurors who later went on to sign a petition in support of the defendants, believed that convictions would result in light penalties such as probation or a few months in jail. On the contrary, a guilty verdict on the criminal enterprise charge alone carried a mandatory minimum twenty-year sentence, a discovery that later shocked Will and Silva. The jury convicted on that charge as well as a variety of others, issuing guilty verdicts for the cultivation of over a hundred marijuana plants and for possession with the intent to distribute. Acquittals came only on the counts of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, sparing the defendants a five-year enhancement on their prison terms at sentencing.
Given the jury’s decisiveness on the substantive charges, it seems odd that they would be stumped by the counts of conspiracy. The logic of the deliberation process is shrouded in secrecy, leaving only guesses about the nature of the impasse. Still, the government has been content to consider the deadlock an anomaly and push forward with a re-trial on the conspiracy counts, providing yet another mystery to ponder. On the surface, it appears disproportionate for the prosecutors to devote such significant resources to a trial that promises so little gain. The conspiracy charges carry penalties that are minor compared to the convictions the government has already secured, and if all sentences are served concurrently, these additional convictions won’t keep the defendants locked up for any additional time.
On a deeper level, however, it appears that the conspiracy re-trial is something of an insurance policy for the government. No doubt it is an uncomfortable position for the government as the former jurors begin to speak out and publicly sign petitions aimed at releasing the defendants from jail. The prosecutors know the defense attorneys are working on a motion to re-try the entire case, and even though it’s too early to tell what the defense has up its sleeve, the government is nonetheless in a precarious position. It very well may be that prosecutors are clinging to the conspiracy charges in case that’s all that’s left in the end. For Scarmazzo and Montes, who are currently incarcerated at Fresno County Jail, such a fate would be the least of the many evils they face.
 Be first to comment this article | |
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. |
|
|
