LEGAL MARIJUANA GROWER CONVICTED BY OVERIDING FEDERAL LAW

ANNOUNCER: Next, he was growing pot to ease the pain -- legally. Now
he's going to jail on drug charges.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED ROSENTHAL, MEDICAL MARIJUANA ADVOCATE: For the first time in my
life I find myself questioning the court system and how the letter of
the law can circumvent the intent of the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: The jury that convicted him says they were duped, when
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: There are no do-overs in legal cases. But some jurors who
served on one California case are now wishing there were.

Here's what happened. Ed Rosenthal was convicted by a federal jury in
California of growing marijuana. Now some of the very jurors who found
him guilty are now hoping his case is overturned on appeal. They were
never told that Rosenthal was working on a state-sponsored program.

While the program is legal in California, it is illegal under federal
law. But Rosenthal, who will be sentenced in June, has plenty of supporters.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG (voice-over): For a man facing 85 years in prison, Ed Rosenthal
isn't ashamed what was he did.

(CHANTING)

ROSENTHAL: When I was convicted, I had no regrets. I take
responsibility for my actions.

CHUNG: A jury found Rosenthal guilty of three federal counts of
conspiracy and cultivation of marijuana. But the jury never knew that
Rosenthal was growing grass for medical use. He was officially part of
a perfectly legal program in Oakland, California.

Why didn't the jury know? The judge would not allow his defense
lawyers to tell the jurors that what he was doing was legal under
state law, even though it was illegal under federal law. Minutes after
the verdict was announced, jurors were shocked to discover they were
not told the full story.

PAMELA KLARKOWSKI, JUROR: I think had we been notified or given that
information, that Ed had been deputized by the city of Oakland to grow
marijuana specific for medical needs, there's no way we could have
convicted him.

ROBERT EYE, ED ROSENTHAL'S ATTORNEY: We're going to work extremely
hard to keep Mr. Rosenthal from going to jail...

CHUNG: Rosenthal's attorney accuses the feds of trying to make an
example of his client, hoping to shut down California's medicinal
marijuana program.

EYE: I really do believe that this case will probably profoundly
affect how these kinds of cases are going to be litigated in the
future, particularly in the context of a federal court.

CHUNG: And how does Rosenthal feel about the jurors who found him
guilty?

ROSENTHAL: I knew that moments after the jury came back with the
decision or within days, that they would have regrets once they got
the full information. They're not to be blamed. The blame goes to the
government.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: And joining us now, two of the jurors who convicted Ed
Rosenthal, Marny Craig and Charles Sackett. Thank you both for being
with us.

CHARLES SACKETT, JURY FOREMAN: You're welcome.

MARNY CRAIG, JUROR: Thank you, Connie.

CHUNG: Marny, I know that the prosecution presented its case five
days, and then the defense presented its case for only two hours. You
went into deliberations. And was there any doubt in your mind that
Rosenthal was guilty?

CRAIG: I had serious doubts. But to tell you the truth, I didn't know
what I was really doubting because we had gotten so little information
from the defense because of the way the trial was run.

We went into the deliberations with only half of the evidence. So
while many of us on the jury were sitting there with serious doubts,
we never voiced them to any extent.

CHUNG: I understand. And just a few minutes later, you came out of
that courthouse, and what did you discover?

CRAIG: We discovered that we had convicted a man who was not a
criminal. We discovered that we had convicted someone who was just
trying to help sick people get through their day. And we discovered
who Ed Rosenthal was, and what he was really doing.

All of that information was kept from us in that courtroom. The
defense was never allowed to get in anything about medical marijuana,
about the books that Ed Rosenthal had written, about Proposition 215,
although obviously we live in California, we supported Proposition
215, and we supported medical marijuana...

CHUNG: The proposition that allows marijuana to be used for medical
reasons for cancer patients and the like?

CRAIG: Yes.

CHUNG: Charles, when you found out that Ed Rosenthal in fact was
legally growing marijuana, as far as state law was concerned, what did
you think?

SACKETT: I wonder how in the heck does a government think any of that
information is irrelevant?

CHUNG: Charles, did this make you angry?

SACKETT: This made me angry beyond belief. I'm not sure I've ever been
so angry in my life. To the point that by the time I got out into the
public, I didn't care if I got into trouble or not. I really do not
know about contempt of court. And at first, I just wanted so raise a
few eyebrows. When I was asked, what is your opinion about this case,
and I said, "I hope he appeals and wins." I figured that would open up
a few eyebrows, raise a few.

CHUNG: Marny, who is the culprit here?

CRAIG: I think the culprit is the system. I think the culprit is the
federal government. And the whole court system, the prosecution, the
DEA, they're all the culprits. It was a huge well-planned scheme to
get Ed Rosenthal because of who he is and what he represents. And I
think that the federal government is going to realize that this is not
the way to handle this situation. The federal government is going to
have to acknowledge the medical marijuana issue and do something about
it.

CHUNG: Marny, what should happen to Ed Rosenthal? He's facing 85 years
in prison.

CRAIG: Ed Rosenthal should have a new trial, a fair trial in which all
of the evidence is presented a trial in which the jurors are informed
of their rights. One of the real problems here was that we didn't know
we had any options. We thought our only choice was to follow the
judge's instructions and not consider anything that was not presented
as evidence in the courtroom. And follow his instructions with regard
to the federal law. And we didn't know that we had the right to do
otherwise. And so we didn't.

SACKETT: Connie, I'd love that image of lady justice, the one who's
blindfolded and carrying the scale on one side. The prosecution was
able to put all of its evidence. On the other side, the defense was
able to put absolutely none. Or virtually none. And we were asked to
then judge that. And I feel embarrassed, humiliated, and can you
imagine being able to sleep at night knowing that your name was at the
bottom of that document?

CHUNG: Marny Craig and Charles Sackett, thank you so much for being
with us.

Joining us now, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeffrey, I don't get it. I really don't.

Why did the federal government prosecute?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This is a big difference between
the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. The Clinton
administration really let a lot of these medical experiments, medical
marijuana experiments, proceed. Attorney General Ashcroft has said
from the very beginning in Oregon, in California, this is against
federal law, you proceed at your own risk, and now he's starting to
prosecute.

CHUNG: So a person such as Ed Rosenthal should have known and should
have -- as soon as the John Ashcroft took over as attorney general, he
should have backed out of his job?

TOOBIN: Well, he should have known. It is against federal law to
possess marijuana. And there's an important issue here. Judge Briar,
the judge in the trial here, the reason he didn't allow this in
evidence was that this is not an intent crime. It doesn't matter what
your intent is under the law, to possess marijuana. If you possess it,
you're guilty. It's like speeding. If you speed, you're guilty. If you
possess marijuana, you're guilty. It doesn't matter if you have good
intentions. That's his ruling. And I think under the law, that's true.

CHUNG: That's correct? I mean did the judge did the right
thing?

TOOBIN: As far as I understand it, I think the judge did the right
thing. The issue here is not so much the judge, it's the prosecutors.
It's bringing a case like this is an invitation to sort of tell the
state of California to go to hell. And your laws don't matter, federal
government matters. But under the law, they have the right to do it.

CHUNG: There are other states that make the use of marijuana for
medical reasons legal.

TOOBIN: And one of the reasons they bring cases like this, the Justice
Department does, is to tell everyone in those states, you want to go
ahead with those marijuana experiments? You're looking at going to
jail too. I mean, it's a specific philosophy of this Justice
Department. And we're seeing the effects of it now.

CHUNG: And in the last 15 seconds.

Does this happen often in which the state is in conflict with the
federal government when it comes to law?

TOOBIN: Sometimes it does. Often in environmental areas, in regulatory
areas. In criminal law, it's very unusual. But it does happen. When it
does, the federal government's rules control. No legal doubt about
that.

CHUNG: So, bottom line, this man could go to prison for 85
years?

TOOBIN: Absolutely. As far as I can tell, based on this case. It's a
sad case, but under the law, I don't think Judge Briar had much of a
choice.

CHUNG: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you.