United States v. Evans, No. 17-30185 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment on remand denying a motion by two medical marijuana growers to enjoin their federal prosecutions for violations of the Controlled Substances Act.
The panel held that section 538 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act authorized defendants to seek to enjoin prosecution, and thus they bear the burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the state's medical marijuana laws "completely authorized" their conduct. Therefore, the district court did not err by placing the burden of proof on defendants. The panel rejected defendants' contention that the government must procure a jury verdict of noncompliance in Washington State Court before it can prosecute them for their federal crimes, and held that Washington's procedural rules should not be imported into section 538. Furthermore, defendants may not resort to common law defenses to show that the Medical Use of Cannabis Act (MUCA) authorizes their conduct, and the district court correctly focused on their compliance with MUCA itself. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendants were not "qualified patients."
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment on remand denying a motion by two medical marijuana growers to enjoin their federal prosecutions for violations of the Controlled Substances Act. In the prior appeal, the panel held that a congressional appropriations rider prohibited the Department of Justice from spending appropriated funds to prosecute individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by state medical marijuana laws; and remanded to the district court with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendants’ conduct was completely authorized by state law. On remand, the district court found that the defendants were not in strict compliance with Washington’s Medical Use of Cannabis Act (MUCA). In this appeal, the panel held that because the appropriations rider authorizes the defendants to seek to enjoin prosecution, the defendants – not the Government – bear the burden of proof regarding whether the state’s medical-marijuana laws completely authorized the defendants’ conduct. Explaining that this court looks to the state law’s substantive authorizations but not to the state’s procedural rules that give practical effect to its medical-marijuana regime, the panel rejected the defendants’ contention that the
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.