Ninth Circuit Cannabis Ruling Gives Biz Owner New Chance to Fight Charges
A new Ninth Circuit ruling confronts the clash between federal and state marijuana laws. "If [Charles] Lynch was not compliant with state law, he is not covered by the rider and is subject to the penalties of his conviction," the Ninth Circuit said.
September 13, 2018 at 02:55 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday breathed new life into the defense of former Morro Bay marijuana dispensary owner Charles Lynch, sending his case back to a trial court to determine if his business was operating legally under California law before he was prosecuted and convicted on drug charges.
That compliance finding will be key. If a judge decides Lynch's Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers was operating legally under state laws, his prosecution could be hampered by a federal appropriations rider that bars federal prosecutors from spending tax money pursuing state-legal medical marijuana operations.
“If Lynch was not compliant with state law, he is not covered by the rider and is subject to the penalties of his conviction,” wrote Judge John Rogers of the Sixth Circuit, who was sitting by designation. “Should the district court resolve the state-law-compliance issue in Lynch's favor, the court may then rule in the first instance on the legal issues that such a determination would raise.”
The 2-1 ruling was by no means a complete victory for Lynch. Rogers and Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee affirmed Lynch's conviction and rejected his arguments that U.S. District Judge George Wu of the Central District of California improperly barred potentially exculpatory evidence from his trial. The panel also found that Lynch should be sentenced to a five-year mandatory minimum prison term if his conviction stands on remand. Wu had sentenced Lynch to one year.
In dissent, Judge Paul Watford said Wu went too far in warning jurors not to engage in jury nullification. Watford said the case should have been remanded to the district court for a new trial.
“At least in cases like this one, where nullification was an obvious possibility given the popularity of medical marijuana in California, I don't see how the government could ever prove that a court's unduly coercive anti-nullification instruction had no effect on the outcome,” Watford wrote.
The majority opinion marks the latest twist in the prosecution of Lynch, who has become an icon in the medical marijuana industry and a symbol of the state-federal tension over legal marijuana. Lynch opened Compassionate Caregivers in 2006—he says he was officially welcomed by the Morro Bay Chamber of Commerce—and obtained a conditional use permit from the city that year to add a plant nursery to the dispensary site.
In March 2007, deputy sheriffs and agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration served search warrants at the dispensary and Lynch's home. Compassionate Caregivers closed in May 2007 and two months later Lynch was arrested and charged with five federal counts related to marijuana distribution and sales to minors.
Lynch's legal plight attracted national media attention and support from two California congressmen who were among the earliest supporters of the original federal appropriations rider, Democrat Sam Farr—now retired from Congress—and Republican Dana Rohrabacher. State Senate Democrats also submitted a friend-of-the-court brief backing Lynch.
California voters approved medical marijuana use in 1996 through the Compassionate Use Act. Seven years later, the state enacted the Medical Marijuana Protection Act, creating a user-identification card system. Federal agencies continued to crack down on sellers and users, however, for violations of federal drug laws.
The ruling in United States v. Lynch is posted below:
Read more:
Get the latest cannabis lawyering, compliance and commentary straight to your inbox with Higher Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readUS Fifth Circuit Departs From Sister Courts on Copyright Infringement Damages
4 minute readEx-Girardi Keese CFO Christopher Kamon, Shackled and Sniffing, Pleads Guilty
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250