Marijuana - Companies & Stocks

[jjr04001]

"Today's "Ruling":

As noted, Judge Mueller today just summarized her written ruling, which she said will be out by Friday. So my summary below is subject to change by the judge in her final, written ruling.

First, the judge noted that she has been getting lots of voice mails and emails on the case, but that she doesn't read or listen to them, and it won't sway her opinion either way. She explained that she is resolving a legal question only--not a public policy issue. And she will base her opinion on the law and evidence presented, regardless of the public's views and comments. (Note: As a former law clerk to a judge, it never helps to email or call a judge to give your personal opinion on a pending issue. Don't do it.).

The judge explained that 45 years have passed since the federal Controlled Substance Act was passed and that it would be an "understatement" to say the landscape on our country's marijuana laws has changed since then. She emphasized that the court "treads lightly" because the defendants have challenged an action of Congress and that her ruling is based only on the evidence and record in front of the court. And on that record, the district court was "not the court" and it was "not the time" to grant the motion to dismiss. She rejected the government's procedural objections, that is, she found that the court has "jurisdiction," or the power to decide the motion, and that the defendants have "standing," or the right to challenge the federal marijuana charges by their motion.

An important preliminary legal question was what standard of review the court should apply in evaluating the defendants' motion. Judge Mueller said she applied the "rational basis" standard of review, meaning, in lay terms, that the government action would be upheld if there was any rational basis for its decision. This is a very deferential standard, under which government decisions are upheld even if the prevailing evidence may point the other way. Under this rational basis standard, the judge said the federal statute prohibiting marijuana for all purposes passes muster. She also stated that the defendants had not met their burden of showing discrimination in the enforcement of federal marijuana laws and that she had rejected the defense's argument based on the recent budget amendment.

What this Means and What Happens Next:

At the outset, many in social media had mischaracterized this case as involving the potential rescheduling of marijuana under federal law to permit it to be used for medical purposes. But it was never about that. There is a bill in Congress now, The CARERS Act of 2015, that would amend the Controlled Substance Act to permit states to allow it to be lawfully used for medical purposes without violating federal law. Even if the judge had granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the charges, it would not have resulted in the federal rescheduling of marijuana.

Next up is a status conference on May 6, with potential trial dates in December of this year or January of 2016. It's possible the defense will file a motion for reconsideration after reviewing the judge's final decision. We should know that by the May 6 hearing.

One or more of the defendants may also decide to continue to fight the charges and appeal the judge's decision. Under federal law, there is no right to an immediate "interlocutory" appeal of the court's decision. To appeal the decision, the defendants have two choices. One way would be to plead guilty and reserve the right to appeal the judge's decision in their plea agreements with prosecutors. The other way would be to go to trial. If they lose at trial, they could appeal the judge's decision after the final judgment.

Despite the decision, there were many bones for the defense. As noted, the judge denied the government's procedural jurisdiction and standing objections. She also found all the expert witnesses "credible" and stated she was not disregarding any of the evidence. Those findings are almost always upheld on appeal, making a potential appeal possible and turning it into largely a "legal," rather than a "factual" appeal. Those appeals generally have a better chance. The judge also indicated that the ruling might be different on a different record, leaving the door open to future challenges. There is no doubt defense attorneys will make similar challenges in other federal marijuana cases."

http://edca.typepad.com/eastern_district_of_calif/2015/04/schweder-marijuana-ruling-today.html