SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- Reverend Charles "Eddy" Lepp has parted ways with his lawyer once again, leaving the world-renowned cannabis advocate to seek yet another appointed attorney to defend his federal cultivation case.
In court yesterday, the assistant federal public defender representing Lepp displayed her eagerness to leave the case. "I cannot continue as Mr. Lepp's counsel," Shawn Halbert said with visible wariness. "There has been a complete breakdown of communication, and I don't say that lightly."
The new attorney on the case will have some catching up to do.
"This is a case that has gone on too long already," said Judge Marilyn Patel, who tried in vain to persuade the attorney-client pair to reconcile.
"Mr. Lepp has had several attorneys, and I don't think anyone has done a better job than you have," the judge told Halbert.
The Lepp case is not only lengthy but also serpentine, winding its way into medical and religious issues as well as into the treacherous territory of state vs. federal law.
Author Vanessa Nelson interviews Reverend Eddy Lepp, right, alongside Libertarian Presidential Candidate Steve Kubby
The charismatic Lepp gained notoriety while growing cannabis for patients who qualified for medical marijuana under California's Proposition 215, passed in 1996. With the requisite doctor's recommendation and a payment to cover the costs of cultivation, a patient would be designated a plot on Lepp's Lake County property. Lepp would then handle all the caretaking work from planting to harvest, at which time the yield of each plot would be handed over to the patient associated with it.
Lepp did all of this on property that was also home to his long-established ministry of Rastafari. For Lepp as well as many other Rastas across the world, cannabis is a crucial sacrament and communion. "It lets me reach a spiritual plateau where I can communicate with the most high," Lepp said in court testimony given in September 2005. "For a Rasta man not to have his ganja is unthinkable."
For Eddy, however, the unthinkable has become all too real.
At the heart of the trouble is the federal government's refusal to recognize California's laws regarding the medicinal use of marijuana. This conflict has created a legal limbo, in which the federal Drug Enforcement Administration has sought the assistance of local law enforcement to raid medical cannabis cultivators and providers statewide.
Lepp was no exception to this destructive trend.
An August 2004 bust on Lepp's property netted a record-setting 32,524 marijuana plants, although Judge Patel later threw out the evidence due to an incomplete search warrant.
In spite of this victory, Lepp is still facing cultivation charges from over 6,000 plants confiscated in a separate February 2005 raid, as well as allegations of sales to an undercover officer.
He has been stripped of a medical defense because he's being tried in federal court, where defendants are typically forbidden from mentioning medical cannabis during jury trial.
Nonetheless, Lepp has asserted a vigorous religious defense, filing motions to dismiss the case on the grounds that his religious freedom has been violated.
And, as Judge Patel noted in court yesterday, he has often done so without any assistance from his carousel of attorneys.
"Mr. Lepp has been filing things on his own," the judge explained as she lifted one eyebrow ominously. "He should be very worried about that because some of them are very incriminating."
These dangers mean little to Lepp, who has been demanding to be allowed a defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
RFRA states that the U.S. government cannot burden religious practice unless it can demonstrate a compelling interest, like safety or health, and can show that it has used the least restrictive means. Although the Supreme Court has invalidated the act as applied to the states, it remains constitutional on the federal level and was recently upheld in the case of Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal.
Lepp made a forceful inquiry about the matter in court yesterday. "This comes down to one question, and that is -- am I entitled to a RFRA defense in your court or not?" he asked Judge Patel pointedly.
"I have a church," Lepp continued, "and that has been totally and completely overlooked by your court and everyone else in it."
Judge Patel appeared unmoved by Lepp's grievances, offering only blasé generalities. "Every counsel in their good judgment has to make a decision about what is a good defense or not," she said coolly before setting the matter aside.
The judge's attention was more clearly focused on her next move -- a decision she hoped would expedite some degree of resolution in the case. Hungry for progress, Judge Patel told the court that she favored severing Lepp's case from that of his associate Daniel Barnes.
Although prosecuted alongside Lepp on the sales charge, Barnes has often taken a backseat during court proceedings as Lepp's various attorneys did the bulk of arguing motions and dealing with witness testimony.
"I want to get the Barnes part resolved," Judge Patel insisted. "It would be useful to send that piece of the case out for a settlement conference with a magistrate judge."
Outside the courtroom, Lepp expressed his optimism about the decision to sever. Maintaining his staunch claim that the sales charge has no merit, the reverend was calmly confident. "He has a good chance," Lepp said of Barnes. "They don't have one shred of evidence against him."
Lepp is scheduled to be back in front of Judge Patel for a status conference on February 5th at 10am, at 450 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco, CA.
As for which attorney will next represent him, it remains to be seen.
The position is open, offering its own unique pleasures and distinctive challenges, and promising the chance to make history.
Be first to comment this article
Only registered users can write comments. Please login or register.
Court Reports 
Be first to comment this article
