• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728THOMAS P. O’BRIENUnited States AttorneyCHRISTINE C. EWELLAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Criminal DivisionDAVID P. KOWAL (Cal. Bar No. 188651)RASHA GERGES (Cal. Bar No. 218248)Assistant United States AttorneysOCEDTF Section1400 United States Courthouse312 North Spring StreetLos Angeles, California 90012Telephone: (213) 894-5136/6530Facsimile: (213) 894-0142E-mail:david.kowal@usdoj.govrasha.gerges@usdoj.govAttorneys for PlaintiffUNITED STATES OF AMERICAUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.CHARLES C. LYNCH, andARMOND TENNYSON TOLLETTE, JR.,Defendants.)))))))))))))))CR No. 07-689-GWGOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TODEFENDANT CHARLES C. LYNCH’SMOTION TO INFORM THE JURY OF THEAPPLICABLE MANDATORY MINIMUMSENTENCESHearing Date: July 7, 2008Hearing Time: 8:00 a.m.Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its attorneyof record, the United States Attorney for the Central District ofCalifornia, hereby files its opposition to the Motion to Inform theJury of the Applicable Mandatory Minimum Sentences of defendantCharles C. Lynch (“defendant”).This Opposition is based on the attached memorandum of points
Case 2:07-cr-00689-GW Document 83 Filed 06/23/2008 Page 1 of 6
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282and authorities, the files and records of this case, and anyadditional evidence or argument the Court may consider at thehearing on this matter.Dated: June 23, 2008 Respectfully submitted,THOMAS P. O’BRIENUnited States AttorneyCHRISTINE C. EWELLAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Criminal Division /S/DAVID P. KOWALRASHA GERGESAssistant United States AttorneyOCEDTF SectionAttorneys for PlaintiffUnited States of America
Case 2:07-cr-00689-GW Document 83 Filed 06/23/2008 Page 2 of 6
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627281
 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESI.INTRODUCTION
Defendant, the owner and operator of a marijuana store, seeksto inform the jury of the applicable mandatory minimum sentencesthat apply in this case. The motion should be denied. Defendant’sentire motion is based on a recent Eastern District of New Yorkcase, United States v. Polizzi, 2008 WL 1886006, *90-134 (E.D.N.Y.Apr. 1, 2008), which determined, based on its analysis of colonialand British jury practice, that the Sixth Amendment required a juryto be informed of any applicable mandatory minimum sentence, if thedefendant so requested. Polizzi’s holding and reasoning conflictswith established Ninth Circuit law, and to controlling precedent ofthe United States Supreme Court. According to that authority,informing the jury of the applicable mandatory minimum sentence willnot assist the jury in determining defendant’s guilt or innocence.Rather, such information is intended to provoke jury sympathy and toinvite jury nullification. Accordingly, this Court should rejectdefendant’s motion and should instruct the jury prior to theirdeliberations that they are not to consider the potential punishmentdefendant may receive if convicted, in accordance with Ninth CircuitModel Jury Instruction 7.4.
II. ARGUMENT
“It has long been the law that it is inappropriate for a juryto consider or be informed of the consequences of their verdict.”United States v. Frank, 956 F.2d 872, 879 (9th Cir. 1991). As theSupreme Court explained in Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573
Case 2:07-cr-00689-GW Document 83 Filed 06/23/2008 Page 3 of 6
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...