Judge Bars Entrapment Defense From Use at San Diego County Medical Marijuana Trial
A few months ago, our Murrieta medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys wrote about a man who is facing federal criminal charges for running a medical marijuana collective in Vista, in San Diego County. James Stacy is not accused of violating state medical marijuana laws. Rather, he is facing federal charges of conspiracy to cultivate and sell marijuana, actually growing marijuana and a firearms violation. At a hearing this week, SanDiego.com reported July 16, the judge in Stacy's case dealt a blow to the defense by ruling that Stacy can't use an argument of "entrapment by estoppel." In this case, that means he can't argue that he should have been safe because the Justice Department had already said it won't prosecute people who are in compliance with state law.
Stacy was one of two dispensary owners charged last fall after an undercover sting by the DEA. The other such person, Joseph Nunes, pleaded guilty and will serve a one-year prison sentence. Stacy was offered the same deal, the article said, but rejected it because he does not feel that he has done anything wrong under state law. In fact, the DEA agrees as far as state law goes, but medical marijuana remains prohibited under federal law, which is the law being used to try Stacy. Stacy's case will be closely watched because he is expected to use his compliance with state law as a defense to federal charges. This strategy has been rejected in previous cases, thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling in Gonzalez v. Raich, but Stacy's case may be the first to go to trial since the Justice Department's statement. This ruling weakens his chance of using that statement as a defense, but may not remove the defense entirely.
As Chino Hills medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers, we're sorry the judge ruled the way he did. As someone quote in the articled pointed out, it's perfectly possible to be heavily prosecuted by the federal government for the same actions that are fully compliant with state law. The Attorney General's memo saying medical marijuana defendants will not be prosecuted is not legally binding on the DEA or U.S. attorneys -- as this case shows -- but it's the clearest guideline currently available for how the federal government intends to handle this discrepancy. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that federal agents and prosecutors are not willing to abide by that memo, and it's even more unfortunate that the judge won't admit evidence of this at trial. Stacy may still be able to appeal the issue, and we wish him the best of luck.
