UPDATE: CHARLIE LYNCH SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR AND A DAY; Free pending appeal Charlie Lynch Sentencing Is Today, June 11: Will Legal Medical Marijuana Dispensary Owner Go to Jail for Helping the Sick?

Nick Gillespie | June 11, 2009

Update: Reason.tv's Ted Balaker, on the scene at the Lynch sentencing, reports that Charlie Lynch has been sentenced to three one-year sentences that will run concurrently, plus one day in jaul.

Lynch is free pending appeal and his lawyers, says Balaker, seem extremely happy and relieved with the sentence and are convinced they will knock it down much lower and that Lynch will not be in prison anytime soon.

Look for video of the post-sentencing press conference at Reason.com and Reason.tv soon.

Charlie Lynch is the medical marijuana dispensary owner whose business, fully legal under California state law, was raided by federal agents in 2007.

At his federal trial last year, Lynch was not allowed to mention the legal status of medical marijuana under California state law while conducting his defense. The predictable-and outrageous-verdict? Lynch was found guilty of distributing pot and faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison.

After several delays, Lynch's sentencing is scheduled for 10A.M. Pacific Time today, Thursday, June 11.

Tune in to Reason.com for an immediate report on the verdict.

Will justice be served? Or will an innocent man pay for the crimes of a government that is out of control? President Barack Obama has said he will stop federal raids against dispensaries in states that have made medical marijuana legal. Will that pledge make a difference in Lynch's sentencing?

This video was edited by Alexander Manning; additional footage provided by Rick Ray.

Approximately 3.20 minutes. For embed code, previous videos on the Lynch case, and audio, iPod, and HD versions, go here now.

The song "Whipping Boy" was written and performed by Chris Darrow. Courtesy of Everloving Music.

Here's a list of Reason's coverage (video and print) of the Lynch story. A snippet of that coverage:

The polite term for Lynch's predicament is Kafkaesque. He is a guiltless man who genuinely helped the sick in his community and is being punished for caring. Now he faces at least five years—and potentially much more—in one of the most sickening and barbaric displays of how the drug war is carpet-bombing huge swaths of American life. Indeed, to call Lynch's plight Kafkaesque is to hide the brutality of America's longest-running and most-destructive war behind an aesthetically comforting phrase.

Charlie Lynch's life has been destroyed by policies and priorities so idiotic and corrosive that they create or exacerbate every negative outcome they purport to address. It is the logic of bombing the village in order to save it raised to an exponential degree and all Americans who believe in the smallest doses of freedom, compassion, rule of law, personal autonomy, and federalism should bear witness to the horror of what has already happened and will likely be made still worse on [June 11].

And watch Reason.tv's original video on the Lynch case, "Raiding California: Medical marijuana and minors":

 

Comments

ktc2|6.9.09 @ 1:33PM|#

Do you seriously even have to ask?

This is the USA, we don't do justice here, just law. Laws written by the most corrupt scum among us (i.e. politicians) and enforced by pigish thugs (i.e. cops).

Of course he's going to jail!

|6.9.09 @ 1:38PM|#

Boy I sure hope this judge doesn't have any empathy and looks to find a way to avoid the mandatory min. Cuz then he would be perverting justice and the will of the legislature and the people who elected them.

|6.9.09 @ 1:49PM|#

Clever, CT. Definitely points for that one.

cricket|6.9.09 @ 2:28PM|#

Of course he's going to jail!

...but not, to be fair, for Helping the Sick

|6.9.09 @ 2:54PM|#

Touche', ChicagoTom.

|6.9.09 @ 3:08PM|#

Although, to be anally correct, CT, the sentencing guidelines are just guidelines, per the SCOTUS. There is no legal bar on the judge sentencing him to time served. All very legal and Constitutional, this vesting of the judge with final authority over sentencing. Kind of giving the judge a defined scope for the exercise of empathy, rather than privileging empathy as a reason for overriding the law.

Evan|6.9.09 @ 4:56PM|#

I am extremely saddened by this man's turn of fate. The battle between state and federal level should not take form by putting innocent people in the mix. This man should not go to prison for doing something that his state deems legal. I understand that federally it is not legal yet, but again, the levels of government should be fighting here, not one man against Washington.

http://beyondrace.com

ktc2|6.9.09 @ 5:18PM|#

Mandatory minimums are not "sentencing guidelines". I believe he will get the minimum which is five. Of course the judge could show some balls and make it time served, but won't.

|6.9.09 @ 5:55PM|#

Mandatory minimums are not "sentencing guidelines".

Yes, they are. Unless something has changed, the SCOTUS ruled (Booker?) that so-called mandatory minimums could be advisory only.

|6.10.09 @ 3:13PM|#

President Obama has the power to pardon Lynch. If he does exercise it, then he will be responsible for imprisoning him. Let's hope that he has some guts.

|6.10.09 @ 3:14PM|#

Sorry, I left out the "NOT":

President Obama has the power to pardon Lynch. If he does NOT exercise it, then he will be responsible for imprisoning him. Let's hope that he has some guts.

|6.10.09 @ 3:23PM|#

This whole thing could have been avoided if the California politicians had noticed the Supremacy Clause in the Federal Constitution and decided NOT to pass a law tricking their own citizens into doing something illegal under federal law.

|6.10.09 @ 3:31PM|#

Remember - Jury nullification! Spread the word for non-violent drug offenses. Tell everyone you know. You never know when you'll be in the jury box.

|6.10.09 @ 3:37PM|#

Another option -- although not as good as jury nullification -- is to tell the judge during voir dire that you will not convict no matter what the evidence. That way you will not get on the jury. If enough people do that, they cannot convict.

Anon321|6.10.09 @ 3:50PM|#

Just to clarify, mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines are not the same thing. A statute will typically provide a mandatory minimum (and sometimes mandatory maximum) sentence. The sentencing judge may not deviate from these unless the prosecution moves for a sentence below the mandatory minimum.

Separately, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which is technically part of the Judicial Branch, has promulgated sentencing guidelines, which attempt to combine lots of factors about the crime and the defendant and then recommend a range in which the judge should sentence. After Booker, those guidelines are advisory only -- if the recommended range is, say, 70 to 90 months, the judge can still sentence the defendant to less than 70 or more than 90 months. Again, though, the judge is still bound by the statutory minimum unless the prosecution moves to sentence below that figure (usually on the basis of substantial assistance to the government).

Hope that helps.

|6.10.09 @ 6:15PM|#

Sentencing guidelines (now discretionary) are different from Mandatory Minimum terms set forth by Congress in the statute defining the crime.

The federal crime of distributing marijuana carries a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence, and a sentencing judge does not have the authority to sentence below the minimum.

He's getting 5 years.

For breaking a law he knew about.

His choice.

Anonymous|6.11.09 @ 9:53AM|#

At his federal trial last year, Lynch was not allowed to mention the legal status of medical marijuana under California state law while conducting his defense.

I haven't been following this story closely. Was the materiale illegalle involved California native? Considering the climate and the weed's propensity to grow, I imagine that could be the case.

If not, why not? And I guess, procedurally, there's nothing a layman like me can complain about beside the sheer violence of it (in the libertarian sense).

If so, then there is no federal authority over this commerce, and not only is the fact that the State allows it relevant, the State itself should be defending its 10th-Amendment powers.

rhofulster|6.11.09 @ 9:54AM|#

shipwreckedcrew,
Would you be kind enough to tell me what provision of the constitution empowers the federal government to outlaw Lynch's actions?
Commerce clause? Welfare clause?

ktc2|6.11.09 @ 10:00AM|#

"The law is the law" is a moronic position, the last stand of someone with no reason behind their position.

I wonder if these morons who spout such tripe would have obeyed the laws in Nazi Germany to turn in innocent Jews for death, and those who helped them. I guess Oskar Schindler was a criminal who should have been executed, right? Cause "the law is the law"?

|6.11.09 @ 10:03AM|#

Thanks, shipwreckedcrew.

So, the Obama Justice Department could ask for time served, and the judge could grant it, regardless of mandatory minimums?

But the Obama Justice Department has not done so?

|6.11.09 @ 10:21AM|#

So, the Obama Justice Department could ask for time served, and the judge could grant it, regardless of mandatory minimums?

But the Obama Justice Department has not done so?

The judge delayed sentencing at one point to see if the Obama administration's new stated policy that they "wouldn't go after medical marijuana cases unless there were also violations of state law" *cough*BS*cough*. The justice department came back and said that "nothing in the new policy would change their prosecution of Mr. Lynch", or something to that effect.

|6.11.09 @ 10:24AM|#

So, my assertion that the Obama administration will not lift so much as a pinky or expend so much as one red cent of political capital to roll back the WOD is still pretty much on target? With the possible exception of fewer federal raids on CA medical marijuana facilities?

Citizen Nothing|6.11.09 @ 10:38AM|#

When it's citizen vs. citizen, fuck empathy --follow the law.

When it's citizen vs. the state, fuck the law.

|6.11.09 @ 10:45AM|#

I'm confused. Charlie Lynch violated federal law. The Supreme Court held in 2004 that federal drug laws supersede state laws. The principle of federalism does not apply when it comes to drug laws. So here we are. A man was properly found guilty of violating federal law. End of story, I would think.
r

Citizen Nothing|6.11.09 @ 10:50AM|#

I agree with Joe Strummer. He is confused.

|6.11.09 @ 12:28PM|#

End of story, I would think.

The story now isn't the conviction, Joe. Its the sentencing.

The Obama Justice Department could keep their conviction and ask the judge to release Lynch with time served.

They haven't. The Obama Justice Department wants him to do hard time. That's the story.

|6.11.09 @ 12:30PM|#

Federal law is attacking the wellbeing of the sick and hurt, as well as those like Charles Lynch whom have the balls to stand up and help said sick and hurt, even though sound science proves that marijuana DOES have medicinal value. History also proves this fact. The federal gov loves Israel SO MUCH! Then look at their 25yr running of medical science regarding cannabis! The federal government IS attacking patients because they live by lies and money, why else would they perpetuate such hyperbole about cannabis that has consistantly and amazingly changed radicly over the last 72years since the passing of the marijuana tax act in 1937?

BTW, if profiteering in this great country is illegal, than maybe we should indict and prosecute every pharmaceutical company for selling poison in the guise of hydrocone, percocet, codiene, and such! And they make a helluva lot more money than mmj providers. Liars AND hypocrites!!!!!

How many patents has the fed's secured on the various properties of cannabis? I'd sure like to know if THAT's true!

wingnutx|6.11.09 @ 12:39PM|#

Great news! The new drug czar has announced that they will no longer use the term "War On Drugs".

phomet|6.11.09 @ 12:57PM|#

The whole framework of Federal Drug laws rests on the idea of interstate trade. Any reasonable person can see that there is no such inter-state trade in these cases.

rhofulster|6.11.09 @ 1:35PM|#

"The Supreme Court held in 2004 that federal drug laws supersede state laws."

The Supreme Court: The branch of government that concocts excuses for government breaches of the constitution.

|6.11.09 @ 2:41PM|#

If federal law supercedes state law, shouldn't there be a provision to change state laws when an applicable federal law comes into place? They don't however, and depending on the political popularity of a law at a local/state level will determine how much a state will fight back against federal intrusion. So to all who claim "The law is the law", it really isn't, anymore than "a judge must follow the letter of the law". Exceptions, interpretations and obsolescence voids laws all the time, without bothering to inform either the federal government or the supreme court. A law is only as strong as those who support it and by the looks of things, the federal government is losing popular backing on alot of them. This man pushed the boundary of federal vs. state power too early and looks like he's going to be burned by it, but there will come a time, long before federal bans are repealed when they simply stop being enforced through a change of mass opinion concerning drugs.

"The law is the law" except that it never has nor ever will be really that case.

emerson|6.11.09 @ 3:10PM|#

This sounds like the best we could have hoped for. Still, there's something wrong when we're happy Charlie's "only" gonna spend a year in prison for operating a medical marijuana dispensary.

Kyle Jordan|6.11.09 @ 3:15PM|#

Holy shit.....


I'm really shocked by this. I'm hoping that his lawyers can get it knocked down like they're saying.

Right on!

I love Big Bro|6.11.09 @ 3:21PM|#

So how did that jury nullification thing work out?

name withheld to protect the g|6.11.09 @ 3:25PM|#

Another option -- although not as good as jury nullification -- is to tell the judge during voir dire that you will not convict no matter what the evidence. That way you will not get on the jury. If enough people do that, they cannot convict.

Sorry Henry, but that's just all kinds of stupid. If enough people do that they cannot convict and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Not bloody likely that either of those things will ever be true, so it is most surely not another option.

If you find yourself on a non-violent drug offense jury, for fuck's sake, don't tell the judge you won't convict. If you do you get kicked off and replaced by someone who will convict. Just keep your mouth shut and then vote for acquittal.

Jack Thread|6.11.09 @ 3:31PM|#

More Fucking Goddamn Paperwork!

IRS Weighs Rules for Taxing Private Use of Work Cellphones:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124473141538306335.html

Anonymous|6.11.09 @ 3:32PM|#

The Supreme Court held in 2004 that federal drug laws supersede state laws.

This is how I would handle the case, defending myself: court press exposure, quote the ninth and tenth amendments, and say "case closed."

Mike M.|6.11.09 @ 3:35PM|#

The Obama Justice Department wants him to do hard time. That's the story.

Precisely. Since this is a federal trial and Obama is the President of the United States, he's not even required to ask the judge for anything whatsoever. He can commute the sentence with a few strokes of his executive pen.

If he doesn't do so, not even his most strident apologists will be able to rationalize away your point.

phalkor|6.11.09 @ 3:37PM|#

Just keep your mouth shut and then vote for acquittal.


Most important part. They really won't put up with your crazy ideas about rights and the constitution and whatever. Keep the mouth shut until it's too late for you to be removed.

stoner|6.11.09 @ 3:38PM|#

Obama doesn't care about potheads!

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.11.09 @ 3:52PM|#

So here we are. A man was properly found guilty of violating federal law. End of story, I would think.

The judge said 5 to 10, Joe Strummer said double that again...

|6.11.09 @ 4:00PM|#

Can someone explain the deal with mandatory minimums again? If what's been said here is true, then is the sentence illegals?... maybe the judge will be put up on charges?

|6.11.09 @ 4:02PM|#

""He can commute the sentence with a few strokes of his executive pen."""

If Obamama really believes that this should be a state issue, he should pardon him.

Xeones|6.11.09 @ 4:09PM|#

If he doesn't do so, not even his most strident apologists will be able to rationalize away your point.

I see you weren't lurking around these parts during the Days Of joe.

Dello|6.11.09 @ 4:16PM|#

"Charlie Lynch has been sentenced to three one-year sentences that will run concurrently, plus one day in jaul."

God NO! Not jaul! Anything but jaul!!

|6.11.09 @ 4:20PM|#

I'm sorry. I seem to remember this Obama mentioning something about "change". Did I mishear him? I'm confused.

|6.11.09 @ 4:31PM|#

I don't remember him ever specifying what kind of change...

|6.11.09 @ 4:44PM|#

This whole thing could have been avoided if the California politicians had noticed the Supremacy Clause in the Federal Constitution and decided NOT to pass a law tricking their own citizens into doing something illegal under federal law.

The supremacy of federal law over state and local law does not nullify the rest of the constitution. Only the Supreme court has that power...

|6.11.09 @ 5:10PM|#

They haven't. The Obama Justice Department wants him to do hard time. That's the story.

Right, like the Bush Justice Department had him arrested and prosecuted. Your point is?

Anyway, he got 1 year and 1 day, which is as lenient a sentence as he could've gotten. And so that's actually probably a credit to the slow, but changing policy on the drug war under Obama.

Meanwhile, there are how many hundreds of thousands of (mostly black) drug users and drug dealers who have served or are serving time for drug crimes. What about them?

MNG|6.11.09 @ 5:11PM|#

""The law is the law" is a moronic position, the last stand of someone with no reason behind their position."

Agreed.

Here's why you have to hate politicians: Obama has publicly said that these kind of raids are wrong and are to stop, but he has done nothing to stop this man from having his liberty suppressed for years for doing the very thing he says it's not a good idea to use federal law enforcement for...Shame on him, shame.

|6.11.09 @ 5:29PM|#

Meanwhile, there are how many hundreds of thousands of (mostly black) drug users and drug dealers who have served or are serving time for drug crimes. What about them?

C'mon, Joe. It's not like Reason has ignored black victims of the WoD.

John Graham Mellor |6.11.09 @ 5:34PM|#

Joe Strummer? I heard you were dead.

|6.11.09 @ 6:06PM|#

They haven't. The Obama Justice Department wants him to do hard time. That's the story.

Right, like the Bush Justice Department had him arrested and prosecuted. Your point is?

Two-fold.

(1) It was wrong to arrest and prosecute him, but its too late to change that now. The decision to jail him rests with the current administration.

(2) A lot of people who voted for Obama seriously believed that he would back off on this kind of stuff. Nobody expected any better from Bush.

Referring to the decision to seek jail time for Lynch as a decision of the Obama Justice Department just makes clear who should be held accountable. Is that a problem?

|6.11.09 @ 6:34PM|#

"They haven't. The Obama Justice Department wants him to do hard time. That's the story."

"Right, like the Bush Justice Department had him arrested and prosecuted. Your point is?"

I thought the point was that Obama is a lying asshole who doesn't mind railroading an innocent person. Why bring Bush (an even bigger asshole) into it. Joe, you might as well have said "It's the death penalty for drugs in Singapore, so what's your point?".

|6.11.09 @ 6:37PM|#

Meanwhile, there are how many hundreds of thousands of (mostly black) drug users and drug dealers who have served or are serving time for drug crimes. What about them?

I don't know, why did they make such a big deal about Dred Scott at the time? What about the other slaves--wasn't anybody worried about them?

|6.11.09 @ 6:54PM|#

I wonder how the jury nullification aficianados would feel about a pro-cop jury refusing to convict cops who were caught on video murdering a handcuffed, helpless suspect. Much of the modern aversion to nullification arose from similar practices, mostly in the South, in the rare instances when a white person was prosecuted for a crime against a black person.

It's a double edged sword, people.

|6.11.09 @ 7:01PM|#

I can't believe that there are still people who think that this man should go to jail. The main argument for puttin him in jail is it is illegal but if we truly live in a democracy then marijuana should be legal in California because the citizens voted to legalize it, lealization passed state, but big brother had to step in because people cannot vote on Federal Laws. Democracy, lol, I call Bullshit.

bgt|6.11.09 @ 8:00PM|#

"Another option -- although not as good as jury nullification -- is to tell the judge during voir dire that you will not convict no matter what the evidence. That way you will not get on the jury. If enough people do that, they cannot convict."

Enough people WON'T do that -- they will just replace you with someone who will convict.

Far better to sit on the jury through the trial, then vote for acquittal, how ever many times the question comes up.

|6.11.09 @ 9:10PM|#

"Far better to sit on the jury through the trial, then vote for acquittal, how ever many times the question comes up."

Far better for whom? Aren't we individuals? Do I want to sit through a trial and then ceaseless hounding my my fellow jurors? And a hung jury will get re-tried. So your tax dollars go into funding another trial, wasting more jurors' time, and likely winding up in a conviction anyway.

No!, I say. The right strategy is, during voir dire, to break into a Socratic-style Galt-like speech about the rights of man, AMERICA!, our founding principles, and the reasons for trial by jury (i.e., nullification).

rhofulster|6.11.09 @ 9:11PM|#

"I wonder how the jury nullification aficianados would feel about a pro-cop jury refusing to convict... "

I would be outraged by the jury's abuse of their power and responsibility. Nullification refers to the jury's duty to judge the law, and only nullify the law if they find it unjust.

A breach of that responsibilty is an outrage on the order of any other treachery committed under color of authority.

Jennifer|6.11.09 @ 9:20PM|#

this is absolutely insane, if a freakin doctor writes a prescription for medical marijuana, apparently he felt it was for the best, why in the hell is this man being persecuted for helping the ill??? Although, i dont see that its fair for only California to be able to do this. Let this man go!

Anonymous|6.12.09 @ 7:21AM|#

It's a double edged sword, people.

Yes, that's freedom.

|6.12.09 @ 11:42AM|#

will the constitution ever become a valid document and does the declaration of independence have any credence .....not yet, but i have faith they will, and hope ....soon.....
in the meantime lets start some witch hunts.....and burn some innocent people alive while the persecuting mob chants
"burn the witch"

|6.12.09 @ 12:07PM|#

and personally i only advocate "cannabis and hemp", i see "marijuana" as a demon (combined the two under one law) created by rich people using the government to sell all their tree produce (for paper pulp) and a chemical magnate to make rope and all the other textiles that hemp was used for......it's only about money ..... for the few, to be gathered from the masses.

|6.12.09 @ 1:00PM|#

and is this trail showing us, that although they won't pursue harassing medical cannabis, they should go ahead and prosecute those already in the system (cause they can), it seems to me that it should liberate ? But I'm just confused by common sense …I guess?

|6.12.09 @ 1:10PM|#

so, if witch hunting is deemed for what it is....and morally stopped...., the authorities should hurry and burn all the people they have incarcerated…before it's too late? …hmmm….

|6.13.09 @ 2:40AM|#

why in the hell is this man being persecuted

He's being persecuted because the War on Drugs is a massive pork-barrel scheme, which pays out billions of dollars in bribe money to politicians and other tax leeches at all levels of government, and anything that demonstrates the stupidity of this gravy train will be viciously suppressed.

-jcr

anonymous|6.13.09 @ 6:13AM|#

Ron

wtf are you saying?
academia is your friend.

|6.13.09 @ 1:51PM|#

Your a smart debater!

RT
www.real-anonymity.pro.tc

|6.15.09 @ 7:43PM|#

Is this really happening?! I'm sitting here in stunned disbelief. The United States of America is no longer the home of the free- it's a borderline police state, with big government as big brother. Tomorrow I'm changing my voter registration from Democrat to Libertarian. I now feel completely trapped by the authoritarianism- God help us all.

User420|11.6.09 @ 9:47AM|#

This is ridiculous. Our country is rotten and skewed in thousands of ways. This is just one. The people on top (Politicians/Government officials) care only about how much profit is made and how much will continue to be made in their favor even if it results in immensely hurting the citizens they are working to "protect".