United States v. Charles Lynch
903 F.3d 1061
9th Cir.2018Background
- Charles Lynch operated a medical-marijuana dispensary (Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers) in Morro Bay, CA; he was indicted on five federal counts including conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, distribution to minors, and maintaining a drug-involved premise.
- Lynch testified and admitted facts sufficient for conviction but asserted an entrapment-by-estoppel defense based on an alleged DEA phone call telling him it was "up to the cities and counties."
- The jury convicted Lynch on all counts; the district court applied a one-year mandatory minimum (for distribution to persons under 21) but granted safety-valve relief and declined to apply a five-year mandatory minimum tied to the conspiracy.
- Lynch appealed multiple evidentiary rulings, denial of certain defenses, voir dire anti-nullification admonition, Brady nondisclosure claims, and sentencing; the government cross-appealed the safety-valve ruling.
- After briefing, Congress enacted an appropriations rider limiting DOJ funds for prosecutions of persons complying with state medical-marijuana laws; the panel remanded to allow the district court to determine whether Lynch complied with California law (which would affect applicability of the rider).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of lawyer testimony and radio recording about Lynch's DEA call | Gov: evidence was hearsay and inadmissible. | Lynch: statements to lawyer and recorded radio interview were prior consistent statements and bolstered credibility. | Exclusion affirmed: hearsay; prior consistent exception inapplicable because statements postdated motivation to fabricate. |
| Admission of evidence of employee Baxter's sale to agent | Gov: sale was an overt act in the conspiracy and admissible under Pinkerton. | Lynch: unfairly prejudicial and he lacked knowledge of that sale. | Admission affirmed (or harmless): relevant to conspiracy; any error harmless given Lynch's concessions. |
| Entitlement to entrapment-by-estoppel instruction | Lynch: DEA call gave affirmative authorization; reliance was reasonable. | Gov: call was ambiguous, not affirmative authorization; reliance unreasonable. | Affirmed that Lynch was not entitled to the defense — call was vague and reliance unreasonable. |
| Safety-valve eligibility and mandatory minimum sentence | Lynch: district court properly applied safety valve despite leadership role. | Gov: Lynch was an organizer/leader of >5 participants so §3553(f)(4) bars safety valve; five-year mandatory minimum applies. | Remand for resentencing: panel held Lynch was ineligible for safety valve and five-year mandatory minimum applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995) (prior consistent-statement rule requires statement predate motive to fabricate)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (coconspirator liability for foreseeable acts in furtherance of conspiracy)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (federal CSA prosecutions permissible despite state medical-marijuana laws)
- Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994) (jury should reach verdict without regard to potential sentence)
- United States v. Kleinman, 880 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2018) (limits on anti-nullification instructions; coercive language may be reversible)
- United States v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010) (defendant knowing federal illegality undermines entrapment-by-estoppel)
- United States v. Batterjee, 361 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2004) (reasonableness of reliance on government assurances)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecutor’s knowledge of false testimony and due process)
- United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016) (appropriations rider limits DOJ prosecution funding for state-compliant medical-marijuana activity)