You know, my opinion of Judge Charles Breyer (younger brother of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Stephen Breyes) went up today. Rosenthol was convicted in Federal Court of growing marijuana, but Breyer refused to let the jury even hear that, under California's voter-approved medicinal marijuana laws, Rosenthal was chartered by the City of Oakland to grow pot as an official city officer. It was Rosenthal's entire defense, but Breyer ruled it as no defense as a matter of law, so the jury had no idea why he was growing the marijuana until after they had convicted Rosenthal and were discharged. Eight of them wrote to the judge asking for mercy or for the verdict to be thrown out.

Breyer sentenced Rosenthol to one day in prison, and since he'd spent a night in jail after his arrest, Breyer said it was time served and released him. Rosenthol still has to complete three years of supervised release, including regular check-ins and pretty mcuh no 4th amendment right to refuse searches. Rosenthol plans to appeal his conviction because he believes his city position immunized him from prosecution, and called for Breyer to resign. Breyer said that since Rosenthol actually believed he was not breaking the law, it would not harm justice to be lenient with him, though he warned that future defendants would have no such excuse. The government may appeal the one-day sentence since it's far under federal sentencing guidelines.

So why do I admire Breyer more? He decided as a matter of law that Rosenthol's defense was not allowed, but he obviously still took the information into consideration in the penalty phase. He didn't want jury nullification or a multi-year prison term in a hot button case. Lots of judges have caved under far less pressure. I don't think the Feds should have brought the case against Rosenthol in the first place (so much for "states rights," Mr. Ashcroft), but it looks like Breyer did a pretty good job on it. You can tell because everyone's unhappy with it.