In United States v. Kleiman, --- F.3d ---, No. 14-50585 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court rejected the defendant's myriad arguments, and affirmed his convictions for for conspiracy to distribute and possess marijuana, distribution of marijuana, maintaining a drug-involved premises, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The Court also affirmed his 211-month sentence.
This case started as a California prosecution of defendants who ran several marijuana collectives in L.A. After the case was dismissed in state court, the feds picked up ball. One defendant went to trial. It did not end well.
On appeal, he challenged the prosecution, arguing the congressional prohibition on using federal funds to prosecute state medical marijuana operations should apply to his case.
Although the Court agreed the prohibition applied to the case, it did not help the defendant, because it only prohibited the expenditure of DOJ funds in connection with a specific charge involving conduct that is fully compliant with state laws regarding medical marijuana. Here, not all the charges qualified. And it did not require a court to vacate convictions that were obtained before the rider took effect (the circumstance here).
Of note, there is a relatively helpful discussion on jury instructions after a defendant makes a nullification argument. The Court held that the district court erred by instructing the jury that “[t]here is no such thing as valid jury nullification,” and that it “would violate [its] oath and the law if [it] willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to [it] in this case.” But the error was harmless.
There are other issues too. If you have a medical marijuana case, this decision is a must read.
