Angiulo: Federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Says Growing Weed Still a Crime
Monday, September 14, 2015
In the August 19, 2015 case of the United States v. Paul Ford three justices of the First Circuit Court of Appeals issue a sharp reminder that marijuana production is a federal crime. In that case, a gentleman from Maine pled guilty to being involved in the production of over 100 kilograms of marijuana. This mattered because under applicable law that is definitely still a crime.
As a result of the sentencing guidelines in the Federal Court, the defendant received nearly 4 years in prison. The length of the prison term was defined, in part, by the amount of marijuana associated with this individual.
In the federal system, the amount of drugs may be defined, for example, any substances seized during the execution of a search warrant. Sometimes the amount of drugs can also be defined by the weight that can be reasonably attributed to a defendant. In the Ford case, the court focused on how this defendant was part of a conspiracy with his family members stretching between approximately 2007 and 2011. Using those dates, and the defendant's own statements of five kilogram harvests, approximately 12 pounds, every nine weeks the Appeals Court found the amount of 101 kilograms attributable to the defendant was appropriate. Since the calculated weight was justifiable, the sentence was also permitted to remain in place.
Some readers may be left with the difficult question of how to resolve the federal laws against growing marijuana with the state laws all over the country to the contrary. While the Ford case cannot provide that solution, it does answer another question in the affirmative. Yes, growing marijuana is still a federal crime.
Related Slideshow: 10 Things You Need to Know About Marijuana Dispensaries in MA
Related Articles
- Angiulo: SJC Makes Adoption Easier For Same Sex Parents
- Angiulo: SJC Says Marijuana Cultivation Alone is Not Proof of Crime
- Angiulo: When is a Business Owner Responsible For a Customer’s Injury?
- Angiulo: Unringing the Bell of Falsified Drug Tests
- Angiulo: Drug Convictions, Firearms and the Supreme Court
- Angiulo: Drug Dogs, Traffic Stops and the U.S. Supreme Court
- Angiulo: SJC Affirms Juvenile Suspects’ Rights During Interrogation
- Angiulo: Statutes of Limitation and the Need to Take Action
- Angiulo: No Matter Who the Defendant is the Law Remains the Same
- Angiulo: Personal Injury, Insurance Companies & the Obligation to Settle Clear Cases
- Angiulo: A Generation of Employees Just got Squeezed a Little Harder
- Angiulo: Elder Abuse, Powers of Attorney and Harassment Prevention Orders
- Angiulo: SJC Says Breath Tests in Massachusetts Are in Question
- Angiulo: Freedom of Speech and Political Campaigns
- Angiulo: Drunk Driving Charges and Commercial Driver’s License Suspensions
- Angiulo: Challenging the Legality of Motor Vehicle Stops by Police
- Angiulo: Overtime Pay for Employees and Employer Obligations
- Angiulo: Sometimes a Spouse Really Does Get Half Your Stuff in a Divorce
- Angiulo: An Insurance Agent at the Intersection of Business Model and Criminal Act
- Angiulo: SJC Looks at Mortgage Foreclosure Process in Massachusetts
- Angiulo: Supreme Court Decides When Online Threats Become Criminal Acts
- Angiulo: SJC Defines the Limits of Parental Discipline
- Angiulo: The Supreme Court, the Death Penalty, and the Constitution
- Angiulo: Land of the Free, Home of Live Nude Dancing
- Angiulo: Employee Injuries and Employer Liability
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It