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 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:
Cannabis Shop Is 'Scaremongering' in Tax Case, Feds Claim in Appeal
Sonoma Residents Sue Marijuana Farm Over Alleged 'Skunk-like Stench'
New Cannabis Industry Suit Alleges Fraudulent Business Practices
Why Patent Lawyers Are Watching This Colorado Cannabis Case
How Tax Lawyers Are Advising Cannabis Clients
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
© 2025 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 AllCleary Nabs Public Company Advisory Practice Head From Orrick in San Francisco
Morgan Lewis Shutters Shenzhen Office Less Than Two Years After Launch
Trending Stories
- 1Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Has New York Sentence Pardoned by Trump
- 2Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
- 3CFPB Resolves Flurry of Enforcement Actions in Biden's Final Week
- 4Judge Orders SoCal Edison to Preserve Evidence Relating to Los Angeles Wildfires
- 5Legal Community Luminaries Honored at New York State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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