## Facts

- Charles C. Lynch operated a California medical-marijuana dispensary (Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers) in 2005–2006.
- Federal authorities investigated and a grand jury indicted Lynch in the Central District of California for marijuana distribution and related offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841, including distribution to persons under 21.
- Lynch asserted he believed his conduct was lawful because it complied with California medical-marijuana law and because of an alleged phone call with a DEA agent suggesting local authorities had discretion over marijuana enforcement.
- To corroborate his account of the call, Lynch offered (1) testimony from an attorney to whom he previously described the call and (2) a radio recording in which the attorney recounted Lynch’s description; the district court excluded both as hearsay.
- A jury convicted Lynch on multiple counts.
- At sentencing, the district court imposed 12 months and 1 day and declined to apply the five-year mandatory minimum in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii), ruling Lynch qualified for the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) safety valve.
- Lynch appealed his convictions; the government cross-appealed the safety-valve ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the exclusion of the attorney’s testimony and radio recording was an abuse of discretion because the evidence was admissible as non-hearsay or as prior consistent statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B).
2. Whether Lynch could rely on an entrapment-by-estoppel defense based on alleged statements by a DEA agent and/or local officials concerning the legality of his dispensary.
3. Whether the instruction telling jurors not to consider punishment (and related language characterized as anti-nullification) improperly interfered with the jury’s role.
4. Whether Lynch qualified for the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) safety valve, permitting the court to avoid the five-year mandatory minimum required by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed Lynch’s convictions.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the corroborating attorney testimony and radio recording as hearsay; they did not satisfy Rule 801(d)(1)(B)’s requirements for prior consistent statements.
- The court rejected Lynch’s entrapment-by-estoppel theory because the alleged statements did not constitute affirmative, authorized federal advice that his specific conduct was lawful under federal law.
- The court upheld the instruction that jurors may not consider punishment and rejected the challenge premised on jury nullification concerns.
- On the government’s cross-appeal, the court vacated the sentence, held Lynch ineligible for the safety valve, and remanded for resentencing applying the five-year mandatory minimum.

## Legal Principles

- Exclusion of hearsay is reviewed for abuse of discretion; purported prior consistent statements are admissible as non-hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) only when offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive and made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose.
- Entrapment by estoppel in a federal prosecution requires proof that an authorized federal official or agent affirmatively represented that the charged conduct was lawful, the defendant actually relied on that representation, and the reliance was reasonable; statements by state or local officials do not suffice.
- A standard instruction that punishment is for the court and must not be considered by jurors in deciding guilt is permissible; a defendant is not entitled to a jury-nullification instruction.
- The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) safety valve applies only if the defendant satisfies all statutory conditions, including truthful disclosure of all information about the offense; failure to satisfy the conditions requires application of the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii).

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit sustained Lynch’s federal marijuana convictions despite claimed reliance on state law and alleged federal statements, approved the trial court’s evidentiary and punishment-related jury instructions, and required resentencing to impose the five-year mandatory minimum because Lynch did not qualify for the § 3553(f) safety valve.


United States v. Lynch, 903 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2018)