Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Brief Fact Summary.
Rosenthal cultivates and distributed medical marijuana for medical marijuana clubs. Rosenthal was indicted for growing marijuana.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Under the Chapter 8.42 of City of Oakland, one cannot reap the benefits of immunity under state law, when he or she is not engaged in the lawful execution of state and federal law.
The power of juries to nullify or exercise a power of lenity is just that-a power; it is by no means a right or something that a judge should encourage or permit if it is within his authority to prevent.
View Full Point of Law
Defendant, Rosenthal, was indicted for growing marijuana. Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the City of Oakland deems him to be a city official allowing him to cultivate marijuana for distribution to medical marijuana clubs, being immune from prosecution.
Issue.
Whether Defendant is immune from prosecution under the City of Oakland statute.
Held.
No, the Defendant is not immune form prosecution under the City of Oakland statute.
Discussion.
Under the City of Oakland statute, one must be “lawfully engaged†in the enforcement of the law, and the enforcement of the state law must be consistent with the federal law. Chapter 8.42. The purpose of the City of Oakland statute was to ensure that seriously ill individuals have access to marijuana. However, the statute does not “compel†anyone to cultivate marijuana. Here, Defendant was assisting or implementing the purpose of the statute. Defendant’s interpretation of the statue conflicts with the purpose of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the federal statute, because the CSA notes that marijuana does not contain any medical benefits. Therefore, Defendant was not lawfully engaged in the enforcement of federal law.