## Facts

- Edward Rosenthal operated an indoor marijuana cultivation facility in Oakland, California, growing hundreds of plants for distribution to medical marijuana dispensaries serving qualified patients under California and Oakland programs.
- The United States charged Rosenthal under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) with manufacturing marijuana, conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, and maintaining a place for manufacturing marijuana.
- Rosenthal asserted that Oakland officials had authorized or designated him to supply medical marijuana as part of the city’s medical cannabis regulatory scheme.
- Before trial, the court excluded evidence and argument concerning Rosenthal’s medical-marijuana purpose, Oakland’s authorization, and related theories offered to justify his conduct under state and local law.
- A jury convicted Rosenthal on all counts.
- After the verdict, Rosenthal moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, challenging the exclusion of defenses and evidence, aspects of jury selection, and alleged juror misconduct.

## Issues

1. Whether Oakland’s authorization and 21 U.S.C. § 885(d) immunized Rosenthal from federal prosecution for CSA violations.
2. Whether entrapment by estoppel applied where Rosenthal relied on statements or authorization from local officials rather than federal officials.
3. Whether Rosenthal was entitled to present medical-marijuana-related evidence and arguments effectively inviting jury nullification.
4. Whether the court improperly excluded prospective jurors who opposed federal marijuana laws or indicated they might not follow the court’s instructions.
5. Whether alleged juror misconduct or post-verdict juror statements established prejudice requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The court denied Rosenthal’s motion for a new trial.
- The court held Rosenthal was not immune from CSA prosecution based on Oakland’s program or § 885(d).
- The court reaffirmed its exclusion of medical-marijuana authorization evidence and nullification-oriented argument as legally irrelevant to the federal charges.
- The court found no constitutional error in excusing prospective jurors unwilling to apply federal law.
- The court concluded alleged juror misconduct and post-verdict juror regret did not show actual prejudice or an improper influence on the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Federal CSA prohibitions apply notwithstanding conflicting state or local medical marijuana laws; local authorization cannot nullify federal drug statutes in a federal prosecution.
- Immunity under 21 U.S.C. § 885(d) is limited to duly authorized officers “lawfully engaged” in enforcing controlled-substance laws; conduct violating the CSA does not qualify based solely on municipal authorization.
- Entrapment by estoppel in a federal criminal case requires affirmative misleading by federal officials (or officials authorized to speak for federal law); reliance on local officials cannot estop federal enforcement of the CSA.
- A defendant has no right to present otherwise irrelevant evidence or argument to encourage jury nullification; jurors must apply the law as instructed.
- A court may excuse jurors for cause when they indicate inability or unwillingness to follow the law; post-verdict juror remorse or disagreement with the law does not, without prejudicial external influence, justify a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Rosenthal’s CSA convictions and denied a new trial, ruling that municipal medical-marijuana authorization did not create federal immunity or an estoppel defense, that nullification-driven evidence was properly excluded, that jurors unwilling to follow federal law could be removed for cause, and that the asserted juror misconduct did not prejudice the verdict.


United States v. Rosenthal, 266 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2003)