Reason.tv: Will Charlie Lynch Avoid Prison for Legally Operating a Medical Marijuana Dispensary? Exclusive footage from his sentencing hearing.

April 24, 2009

 

On April 23, 2009 a federal judge postponed the sentencing of Charlie Lynch, the man at the center of the nation's debate over medical marijuana. Lynch operated a medical marijuana dispensary that was fully legal under California law. However, in 2007, his business was raided and last year he was found guilty in federal court of distributing marijuana.

The judge signaled that, if possible, he wanted to find a way to avoid the five-year mandatory minimum sentence proscribed by law.

"To be blunt, if I could find a way out, I would," said U.S. District Judge George H. Wu.

At the hearing, Wu heard from several character witnesses, including Owen Beck, a former patient of Lynch. Beck's parents obtained medical marijuana when he was battling bone cancer at age 17. During the trial, Beck briefly took the stand, but his testimony was cut short by Wu. Steve Beck, Owen's father, told Wu that "Lynch did not make much money off of us," noting that Lynch provided them with medical marijuana "for free or at a very deep discount." Steve Beck questioned "how the incarceration of Charlie Lynch would benefit society."

Also among the character witnesses were Tom Lynch, brother of Charlie, and officials from Morro Bay, California, where Lynch's dispensary was located.

The courtroom was filled to capacity, and toward the end of the hearing roughly 90 percent of those in attendance stood up in a silent sign of support for Lynch. They remained standing for approximately 15 minutes.

Wu scheduled the next and final hearing for June 11.

In this reason.tv video update, we hear from Morro Bay Mayor Janice Peters, Morro Bay City Attorney Robert Schultz, Tom Lynch, Lynch defense attorney Reuven Cohen, and Charlie Lynch.

Approximately 4 minutes. Produced by Ted Balaker; shot by Paul Detrick.

For Reason.tv's complete coverage of the Lynch saga, go to http://reason.tv/video/show/760.html

Comments

|4.24.09 @ 3:19PM|#

Fuck the teaparties, I say we amp up this 10th amendment movement and solve multiple problems at once.

|4.24.09 @ 3:26PM|#

James, let's be sure to bring a heavy dose of the 2nd to go with the 10th, you know, just in case.

Beavis|4.24.09 @ 3:37PM|#

"To be blunt, if I could find a way out, I would," said U.S. District Judge George H. Wu.


Hehhehe - he said "blunt". Hehheh. Pass the Doritos, dude.

|4.24.09 @ 3:58PM|#

Be a supporter, be in the crowd on June 11th at the court house, Lynch needs us!

SpongePaul|4.24.09 @ 3:58PM|#

well if there is jury nullification, if this judge did what he said, he could throw it out, give him 1 day, or probation, he can ignore a mandatory min. he is the JUDGE! yeah it may be overturned on appeal, but the judicial is supposed to check the leg. he can declare man min unconst. and do away with them. since unjust punishment is supposed to be protected against

Paul|4.24.09 @ 3:59PM|#

At the hearing, Wu heard from several character witnesses, including Owen Beck

Please tell me Owen Beck did not show up to the hearing with dreadlocks, wearing a ripped Bob Marley tee-shirt blazoned with the words "Legalize it!", flipflops and bermuda shorts, and have a string of legal issues, most of which stem from procrastination like expired licenses, out of date insurance or reams of unpaid parking tickets. And tell me Mr. Beck was able to get to the podium without the bailiff repeatedly having to show him the way as he aimlessly wandered around the courtroom making utterances like "oh wow, man, far out..."

|4.24.09 @ 4:23PM|#

What 10th, or 2nd??? I thought we got those removed years ago, lol

The New Guy|4.24.09 @ 5:20PM|#

Amen to that, Mr. Ard! The tenth might as well not be in the damn Constitution, the way it's treated.

|4.25.09 @ 11:15AM|#

This is an outrage, this would never happen in Britain, Charles Lynch has the support of everyone with an intellect and anyone with any kind of moral or ethical standard. I certainly hope he's cleared!

Abner MacGillicuddy|4.25.09 @ 1:01PM|#

Yeah, in Britain you just throw people in jail for acting in self defense and can't be bothered to effectively prosecute rape charges.

|4.25.09 @ 1:08PM|#

I am strongly in favor of letting Mr. Lynch off with time served, and I am outraged that he was ever arrested. Add to that, the way he was treated was and should be immoral and unethical.

jamesh|4.25.09 @ 3:46PM|#

disgusting. another example of how crap the justice system is.

d|4.25.09 @ 6:16PM|#

> Yeah, in Britain you just throw people in jail for
> acting in self defense and can't be bothered to
> effectively prosecute rape charges.

Not to mention just exercising one's freedom of expression -- if it's deemed "racist" or "slanderous".

Federale|4.25.09 @ 10:01PM|#

What part of mandatory minimum doesn't Judge Wu understand?

|4.26.09 @ 6:28AM|#

In a state where MEDICAL marijuana is legal, how is this REDICULOUS FEDERAL INTERFERENCE even possible? There must have been "exceptions" in the federal law, that allowed for state legalization in the first place!

What kind of LEGAL SYSTEM would allow a patient to SUFFER EXTREME PAIN before a DREADFUL AGONIZING death because of paper-pushing IDIOTS who can't differentiate a "drug dealer" from a pharmacist? This is an OUTRAGE!

I sincerely hope EVERY PATIENT sues the government for the "pain and suffering" they have to endure because of NOT RECIEVING the proper doctor prescribed medical treatment!

Who do I write, and how can I help?

|4.26.09 @ 8:58AM|#

You know, if this judge really wanted to nullify this guy's sentence, he can declare federal intervention in drug laws "unconstitutional"- since drug control is not an enumerated power (why do you think prohibition of ALCOHOL required an amendment? Why not the prohibition of all other drugs get this deferential treatment of actually abiding by the constitution I do not know)

Or the judge can set a great precedent for this country by reminding voters of jury nullification. Back in Jefferson's day, the jury was the last-ditch effort for ensuring justice, and they had so much power to not only vote the truth of the matter (if the accused broke the law), but also to judge whether the law itself was just. A jury, in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, had the power to throw a case out if they thought the law was unjust.

|4.26.09 @ 11:22AM|#

Considering how many Americans are in complete outrage over this, I hope the Lynch family considers accepting donations to help recover from the financial burden that has been put on them thus far. I'd gladly write a check.

I wonder if this is something that Reason might be able to help with?

|4.27.09 @ 6:16AM|#

You know, if this judge really wanted to nullify this guy's sentence, he can declare federal intervention in drug laws "unconstitutional"-

Why would he want to do that? He's already demonstrated that he has no interest at all in justice.

-jcr

Komninos|4.27.09 @ 10:01AM|#

"I sincerely hope EVERY PATIENT sues the government for the "pain and suffering" they have to endure because of NOT RECIEVING the proper doctor prescribed medical treatment!"
YES! And Lynch should sue them too. Everyone who is behind this.

|4.27.09 @ 2:47PM|#

@Bill: Yeah where along the line did we lose the whole jury nullification concept? Modern juries are explicitly told not to consider the validity of the law in question, but only whether it was violated.

I have no clue how a judge would react if a jury came back with a nullification verdict. Would it be allowed? Could it even happen in the first place? I would be less surprised to see wholesale juror replacements than I would be to see a nullification verdict upheld.

|4.30.09 @ 7:46PM|#

I would love to see reason and common sense return to our shores, the new president is an improvement but voters need to keep the pressure up until sanity takes the field.