United States v. Schafer
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23131
9th Cir.2010Background
- Fry, a cancer patient, used medical marijuana; Schafer cultivated for Fry at her request in California; the operation expanded beyond personal use.
- Local police repeatedly visited the business; DEA and local agents later jointly investigated and conducted undercover visits related to marijuana recommendations.
- In 2001 federal agents executed a search warrant on Appellants’ business and home after the interagency probe.
- June 15, 2005, grand jury indicted Schafer and Fry for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana and for manufacturing at least 100 plants.
- Appellants moved to dismiss on entrapment by estoppel grounds; the district court denied, and trial proceeded with a guilty verdict on the conspiracy count and manufacturing quantities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on entitlement to entrapment by estoppel | Government argued no factual dispute entitled to hearing; misrepresentations not by federal official | Schafer and Fry sought hearing to resolve whether officers were federal officials and misrepresented legality | Abuse of discretion avoided; hearing not required; disputes intertwined with guilt |
| Entrapment by estoppel as a matter of law | No reliance on misrepresentations; officers not authorized federal officials or did not misstate legality | Relied on officers’ statements that conduct was permissible | Not entrapment as a matter of law; credibility issue for jury unresolved; district court not error |
| Medical necessity defense post OCBC II | OCBC II precludes medical necessity defense; no defense viable | Due process retroactivity concerns to retroactively apply OCBC II | OCBC II controls; retroactivity not violated; district court properly barred medical necessity defense |
| Sentencing entrapment | Government conduct induced higher-scale wrongdoing; entrapment mitigation warranted | Affidavits show government inducement to increase production | No active government involvement; affidavits insufficient; no sentencing entrapment relief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hagege, 437 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2006) (review of evidentiary hearing abuse of discretion)
- Shortt Accountancy Corp., 785 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir. 1986) (pretrial factual determinations; limits of Rule 12 determinations)
- United States v. Brebner, 951 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (elements of entrapment by estoppel; reliance required)
- United States v. Burrows, 36 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 1994) (entrapment by estoppel requires reasonable reliance)
- Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001) (due process and retroactivity in judicial decisions; notice concerns)
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 532 U.S. 483 (2001) (OCBC II; medical necessity not a defense to manufacturing marijuana)
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. (OCBC I), 190 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognition of medical necessity defense prior to OCBC II)
- United States v. Mejia, 559 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2009) (sentencing entrapment framework and standards)
- United States v. Staufer, 38 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1994) (active inducement and sentencing entrapment concerns)
- United States v. Haynes, 216 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2000) (no sentencing entrapment where police did not induce growth)