Federal Defense Attorney John Teakell

With many states relaxing the penalties for possessing marijuana, one federal law maker believes that the federal government should do the same. Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.), introduced the bill H.R.5843 Act to Remove Federal Penalties Marijuana Use which would eliminate federal penalties for the possession or not-for-profit transfer of small amounts of marijuana. The bill would remove federal penalties at the federal level only for: (1) possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana and (2) the not-for-profit transfer of one ounce (28.3 grams) of marijuana. Additionally, the legislation would decriminalize the public use of marijuana and call for a civil penalty of $100 instead.

Proponents Praise the Bill

NORML, a recognized organization on legalizing marijuana, said the bill is a common sense approach that will refocus law enforcement resources on fighting violent and more serious crimes. NORML founder and Legal Director Keith Stroup noted that according to recent media polls, marijuana decriminalization currently enjoys support from the majority of Americans. “If passed by Congress, this legislation would legalize the possession, use, and non-profit transfer of marijuana by adults for the first time since 1937,” Stroup said.

Not Everyone is Thrilled with the Idea

Critics of the bill argue that the potency of marijuana has risen consistently over the past decades and higher potency translates into serious health consequences for users. They stated that some studies show that higher potency marijuana may be contributing to an increase in the number of American teens seeking treatment for marijuana dependence. Critics also noted that the use of marijuana leads to harder drugs and can have a drastic impact on society from individuals committing crimes seeking to support that drug use.

Proof that the Law will Work

Currently, twelve states have enacted various versions of marijuana decriminalization, eliminating criminal penalties for minor violations. Similar statewide legislation is pending in New Hampshire and Vermont. Additionally, Massachusetts voters will decide on a statewide decriminalization measure this November. According to federal data, passage of these laws has not subsequently led to increased marijuana use. Rep Frank strongly stands behind the bill, “It’s time for the politicians to catch up with the public on this [issue],” Frank said. “The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly.”

The bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Health and is currently awaiting a vote.

If you or a loved one is facing a drug possession charge, contact John Teakell, Dallas drug possession defense attorney.

The federal government seems to be as relentless as ever in its pursuit to prosecute individuals that are involved with the BALCO steroid investigation. If one is not familiar with the details of the investigation they may think that the government is actually targeting the dealers of steroids. However, this is simply not the case. Nearly every prosecution thus far involving the BALCO investigation has been as a result of the individuals making false statements to the investigators. Lying to a federal agent is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.

An Anonymous Tip Backfires

The latest to feel the brunt of the federal government’s wrath regarding the BALCO case is whistle blower Trevor Graham. The investigation at BALCO was actually launched after Graham tipped authorities with an anonymous package containing a used syringe full of a mysterious substance. After an investigation, agents later traced the package back to Graham.

Graham was indicted for making false statements after federal investigators said he lied to them in an interview in 2004 concerning contact he supposedly had with a confessed steroid dealer. On May 29, 2008, Graham was convicted on one count of lying to investigators, but the jury deadlocked on two other charges of making false statements. Graham is scheduled to be sentenced on September 5.

Ironically, Graham was the coach of convicted ex-gold medalist Marion Jones is currently serving a six month prison term for false statements she made to federal investigators involving her use of steroids.

A Star Falls

Perhaps the most notable defendant of the BALCO scandal is baseball homerun king Barry Bonds. A federal grand jury indicted Bonds in November 2007 on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice, claiming that he lied when he told the grand jury that he did not knowingly use performance-enhancing drugs. On May 13, 2008, federal prosecutors filed an additional 15 felony charges against Bonds in a new superseding indictment featuring 14 perjury counts and one count of obstructing justice. Bonds, has pleaded not guilty to the charges, denied any wrongdoing and has never tested positive for steroids or other banned drugs.

Despite the greater number of counts, the superseding indictment alleges no other false statements than the original indictment. Bonds faces a maximum sentence of five years if convicted but with the way federal sentencing guidelines are structured, it is doubtful that he would serve any additional time if found guilty on the greater number of counts. Bonds trial date has not been formally set but is expected to take place in late 2008 or early 2009.

For anyone that is not familiar with the story of Willie Mays Aikens it is a tragic tale that illustrates the unjust sentencing and racial disparities between crack and powder cocaine in the federal court system. Aikens was a Major League Baseball player who played nearly a decade, mostly with the Kansas City Royals, and was especially prominent in the 1980 World Series. Aikens became famous by becoming the first Major League Baseball player to have two multi-home run games in the same World Series. This fame was short lived, however, when in 1983 he was arrested for cocaine possession and sentenced to prison for three months. Upon his release from prison Aikens played another two years for the Toronto Blue Jays but was never able to return to the form that had gained him fame.

After his baseball career, Aikens’ legal problems continued when in 1993, a Kansas City police officer began purchasing small amounts of crack cocaine from Aikens. After several undercover transactions that amounted to less than $100, Aikens was arrested by police. The entire amount of sales added together equaled a total of 64 grams. With this evidence, the United States Attorney’s office charged Aikens with multiple counts of trafficking crack cocaine.

Because of the harsher sentencing penalties for dealing crack in the federal system, Aikens faced a sentence as if selling the equivalent of 15 pounds of powder cocaine. The sentencing disparity was established after the cocaine-related death of University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias in which Congress felt obliged to pass the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. It allowed sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine, seen at the time as the more dangerous form of the drug, to be 100 times more severe than for crimes involving powder cocaine.

Aikens rejected all of the government’s plea offers and instead exercised his right to a trial claiming that he had been entrapped. However, a federal jury did not agree and Aikens was convicted on all charges. Aikens was then sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of 248 months in prison. Had the drug charges against him involved a similar amount of powder cocaine, Aikens would have been sentenced, at most, to 27 months instead of the maximum 20-plus years he was given. In addition, because a 12-gauge shotgun was found on the premises, Aikens was sentenced to an additional 5 years for possessing a firearm in connection with a narcotics offense.

After being turned down for a presidential pardon and serving over 14 years of his 20 year sentence, Aikens finally got the break he had been waiting for. On March 3, 2008 new crack sentencing guidelines were approved by Congress and made retroactive, affecting Aikens’ sentence. The result was Aikens’ sentence was lowered to 15 years thus making him eligible for release on June 9, 2008.

Despite his baseball fame and prestige, Aikens’ story is not a unique one. His situation has also been experienced by thousands of other men and women who are serving severe sentences for low-level drug offenses. Fortunately, the recent changes to the sentencing guidelines are finally curing the disparity and injustice suffered by Aikens and thousands of others.

If you or a loved one has been accused of alleged drug trafficking, contact Dallas drug trafficking charges defense attorney John Teakell for your 100% free consultation.

If a defendant has been indicted by the federal government for a violation of the narcotics statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b), and he has a prior conviction for a drug offense, the penalties can become quite severe. The mandatory penalties can double in prison time if a defendant has a previous drug conviction. The statute 21 U.S.C. § 851 , dictates the procedure whereby the government establishes that a defendant has a prior conviction, hence triggering an enhanced statutory sentence under the drug laws.

The discretion whether or not to file the enhancement is entirely up to the prosecution. However, the court can only increase the statutory sentencing range of a drug crime based upon a prior conviction if the government files such notice of the prior conviction pursuant to this statute. 21 U.S.C. § 851 provides that the enhanced penalties set forth in § 841(b) are triggered only if the government files, before trial or the entry of a guilty plea, an information “stating in writing the previous convictions to be relied upon.” This language is mandatory and if the government fails to file an information before trial, or entry of a plea of guilt, then the court lacks jurisdiction to enhance a defendant’s sentence.

Once the Government proves the defendant has a prior conviction, the defendant then has the burden of showing that the convictions are invalid. This may be prove to be somewhat of a heavy burden since certain time requirements would apply that allow a defendant to dispute the previous conviction. 21 U.S.C. § 851(e) prohibits the challenge of a prior conviction which is more than 5 years old. Furthermore, although the United States Sentencing Guidelines exclude certain prior convictions after a certain period of time, under 21 U.S.C. §841(b), it makes no difference how old the priors are.

In short, although the attempt to overcome the use of a prior conviction in a drug offense is a high hurdle to overcome, it is not necessarily an impossible one. Court records will reveal if that prior that the government may want to rely on to enhance the sentence was constitutionally obtained.