## Facts

- The United States charged Luke Anthony Scarmazzo and Ricardo Ruiz Montes with federal marijuana offenses, including knowingly or intentionally manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance, under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq.
- The prosecution arose from the defendants’ alleged operation of a marijuana dispensary in Modesto, California (commonly described as the California Healthcare Collective).
- Before trial, the government filed motions in limine seeking to bar the defense from presenting evidence or argument that marijuana has medical value, that “medical marijuana” sales are lawful, or that defendants acted based on a good-faith belief in legality.
- The government also sought to exclude defenses and related evidence grounded in medical necessity or common-law necessity, as well as suggestions that marijuana should not be classified as a Schedule I controlled substance.
- The defendants indicated they intended to defend by pointing to California’s medical-marijuana framework, their claimed medical purpose, and their alleged good-faith reliance on compliance efforts and legal advice.
- The matter came before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Judge Oliver W. Wanger) for a pretrial evidentiary ruling governing what the jury could hear.

## Issues

1. In a federal CSA prosecution for marijuana distribution/manufacture, may defendants introduce evidence or argument that marijuana has legitimate medical value, that “medical marijuana” sales are lawful, or that marijuana should not be Schedule I?
2. May defendants present a medical-necessity or common-law necessity defense to CSA marijuana charges?
3. May defendants introduce evidence that they relied on state medical-marijuana law or advice of counsel to show a good-faith belief that their conduct was lawful under federal law?

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motions in limine in substantial part.
- The court ordered that defendants may not introduce evidence, elicit testimony, or argue to the jury to suggest:
  - marijuana has any legitimate medical value;
  - it is lawful to sell “medical marijuana”;
  - defendants had a “good faith” belief that marijuana is of medical value or that their conduct was lawful on that basis;
  - a medical-necessity defense (or similar necessity theory) applies; or
  - marijuana is not, or should not be, a Schedule I controlled substance.
- The court further barred the defense from using state-law compliance or attorney advice as a vehicle to argue that defendants’ conduct was lawful under the CSA or to invite the jury to disregard federal law.

## Legal Principles

- Federal marijuana prosecutions under the CSA are governed by federal law; state medical-marijuana laws do not legalize conduct that the CSA prohibits.
- Congress has classified marijuana as a Schedule I substance, reflecting a legislative determination that it has no currently accepted medical use for purposes of federal criminal enforcement; trial evidence aimed at contesting that classification is legally irrelevant in a CSA case.
- Under *United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative*, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), a medical-necessity defense is not available to justify distribution/manufacture of marijuana prohibited by the CSA where Congress has already made the controlling policy judgment.
- Evidence and arguments that tend primarily to encourage jury nullification—by asking jurors to prefer state policy views about “medical marijuana” over federal law—may be excluded as irrelevant or as likely to confuse issues and mislead the jury (including under Federal Rules of Evidence 401–403).
- A defendant’s belief that conduct is lawful under state law does not negate the elements of standard CSA offenses that require knowing engagement in the prohibited conduct (such as distributing or possessing with intent to distribute), rather than knowledge that the conduct violates federal law.
- Advice-of-counsel concepts do not create a general defense to CSA distribution/manufacture charges; where the charged offense does not require proof of “willfulness” as knowledge of illegality, attorney advice does not make the conduct lawful and may be excluded if offered to argue legal authorization contrary to the CSA.

## Conclusion

*United States v. Scarmazzo*, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (E.D. Cal. 2008), is a pretrial order holding that, in a federal CSA prosecution of alleged dispensary operators, the defense may not present medical-marijuana policy evidence or arguments (medical value, legality under state law, or challenges to Schedule I status) and may not assert medical necessity or use state-law compliance or attorney advice to claim lawful conduct under federal law; the court granted the government’s motions in limine to prevent irrelevant and jury-confusing defenses inconsistent with controlling Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority.


United States v. Scarmazzo, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (2008)