JEFF JONES GUILTY OF LEAFLETING

In Jeff Jones, the 28-year-old director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers
Co-op, we have a rarity: a movement leader capable of expressing
self-criticism. This week Jones was convicted by a federal magistrate in
Sacramento of attempting to 'influence juror[s] by writing,' a class-B
misdemeanor that exposes him to a six-month sentence and a $1,000 fine.
Jones had been arrested on the morning of Monday, June 24 while leafleting
outside the courthouse where the trial of Bryan Epis was getting underway.

Jones isn't complaining that the feds violated his right to free speech.
Nor is he badmouthing the activists who downloaded Bryan Epis's account of
the case and made copies for distribution at the courthouse. (Less specific
material might have been more defensible.) Jeff is down on himself for not
reading the leaflet and understanding its implications before passing it
out. He had not planned to get arrested that day.

The man Jones intended to help, Bryan Epis, was one of the first
Californians growing cannabis for medical use to be prosecuted by the U.S.
Department of Justice after the passage of Prop 215. At the time of his
arrest in 1997 Epis was growing a couple of hundred indoor plants at his
home in Chico, most of them small clones, for himself and several patients
who had physicians' approval. Any surplus, according to Epis, was provided
to the local buyers' club at a cost that barely covered his expenses.

Epis hired Tony Serra to defend him. The case dragged on for years. As
Epis's day in court approached, Americans for Safe Access attempted to
publicize his plight through demonstrations.

The June 24th demo began about 9 a.m. and was attended by about 15 people
- --friends of Epis's from Butte County, and supporters from Sacto and the
Bay Area. Some participants stood with signs at the intersection of 5th and
'I' Streets. Others held signs and passed out leaflets in front of a
parking lot across 5th St. from the courthouse. Jeff Jones stood on the
federal plaza, passing out a 'Statement of facts from Bryan Epis.'

Fifteen stories above, U.S. District Court Judge Frank Damrell angrily
perused a copy of the leaflet Jones had handed to U.S. Attorney Samuel
Wong. (Jones hadn't recognized Wong and Wong hadn't recognized Jones,
although he certainly knew tbe name of the defendant in the famous U.S. vs.
OCBC case.) Wong reportedly complained that the government couldn't get a
fair trial if jurors knew that the defendant faced a 10-year mandatory
minimum for growing medical marijuana. Judge Damrell --this is how fate
works-- had only a few days before disappointed the U.S. Attorney by
refusing to sentence two campesinos arrested at a marijuana patch in a
federal forest to the 20-year mandatory minimum dictated by the number of
plants, observing that they were obviously not the kingpins the law had in
mind. Now the judge evidently feared that Epis and his supporters were
trying to take advantage of him, and as if to reaffirm his strictness, he
announced that he would cut short the proceedings --dismiss the panel of 42
prospective jurors-- and hold a hearing on whether Epis had obstructed justice.

Epis claimed that he had written and posted his account of the case to
encourage attendance at his trial. He denied telling anyone to circulate it
in front of the courthouse. If Jeff Jones hadn't entered Damrell's
courtroom to attend this hearing, it's unlikely that he would ever have
been charged. But he did, and he was arrested by DEA agent Ronald Mancini,
and subsequently charged with violating two sections of the federal penal
code, 1507 (the more serious) and 1504.

Section 1507 states, 'Whoever, with the intent of interfering with,
obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent
of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the
discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building or
residence occupied or used by a judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or
with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any
other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be
fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.'

Section 1504 states, "Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision
of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any
issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he
is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any
written communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined
not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than six months or both."

Mike Bigelow, a veteran Sacramento defense lawyer, was appointed to
represent Jones (who has not gotten rich off medical cannabis), Bigelow
filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Section 1507 abridges the First
Amendment right to free speech and is unconstitutionally vague and
overbroad, and that 1504 didn't apply because 'at the time of the alleged
offense, no matters were pending before a jury. Those individuals allegedly
approached by Mr. Jones had not yet been sworn or seated as jurors.' The
second part of the motion was denied by U.S. District Magistrate Judge
Peter A. Nowinski.and the first part became moot when the U.S. Attorney's
office dropped the 1507 charge (which would have entitled Jones to a trial
by jury).

And so on Monday morning, Dec. 16, Jones was back at the federal courthouse
in Sacramento to be tried by Magistrate Judge Nowinski. A young prosecutor
named Christopher Hagan presented the government case, which took about
five hours. As described by Mike Bigelow: 'The government witnesses
testified that they were jurors or had come to be jurors in a case, and
that they walked through a series of pickets on 5th St. Some of them
noticed enough to conclude that the issue was medical marijuanaS They
walked into the rotunda. Jeff Jones approached them. Some of them he handed
a leaflet. To some of them he said 'Vote your conscience.' Some of them he
simply told 'Vote your conscience."

How subversive can you get?

'He approached a U.S. Attorney, Samuel Wong. He approached a U.S. Marshall,
who took the literature and then threw it away, which was interesting. The
witnesses were unsure if the document that they'd actually looked at in the
courtroom was the same as the document they'd been handed. They said, 'It
looks likeS It might be...' Maybe this will have some bearing on appeal.'

Jeff's Comments

Jeff had a long, slow drive back in the rain and made it to the OCBC in
time to help close Monday evening. The co-op sells hemp items and
literature --a break-even proposition-- and stays afloat by issuing and
updating patient i.d. cards for the city of Oakland. A total of 18,000
cards have been issued since '97. Jeff estimates that about half the
memberships are active (renewed within the last year).

CN: How many people were actually leafleting that morning outside the
federal courthouse?

JJ: Four.

Why do you think they only arrested you?

I stood out from all the rest, being in a business suit, and I was on the
court steps --all the other people were across the street. I was on
government propertyS I couldn't deny that I was standing there. I couldn't
deny that I had a paper in my hand. I didn't have a defense and I didn't
present one. What was I supposed to do? Lie to them?S We did argue that
selective prosecution had occurred. The judge denied that by saying 'Them
doing it doesn't mean you can do it.'

Did you try to get tactical advice from Tony Serra or any civil liberties
specialists?

Serra wouldn't call my attorney back. He talked to me the day of the
incident and didn't hold out hopeS The judge said the paper I was handing
out had too much information on it. It was too detailed. If it had simply
said, "Medical marijuana is good for patients who are exempt under
California law." I wouldn't have been arrested. What I was handing out was
too specific --not on the court steps, not in their face. I chalk it up as
an expensive lesson that you can only go so far to educate the population.
They don't consider talking in the press to be poisoning the jury pool, but
when you hand out literature at a federal-court trial.

Who told you this was a good piece of literature to hand out?

I just grabbed stuff that was in the car. I didn't even read it until I'd
handed it out to about 10 people and figured out what it was. But I
couldn't use that as a defense: "I don't know how to read..."

Did you say anything as you handed it to people?

Two or three of the jurors who were brought in as witnesses said I had
first asked them if they going in for jury duty, and if they said yes, I
said 'Vote your conscience.' If I'd just said 'Vote your conscience' --not
so bad. But asking if they're going to jury duty --a bad faux pas. I
actually don't recall saying that, but I must have. One witness said I'd
told her, "I have a friend on trial for growing medical marijuana."

Did any of the witnesses discuss the Epis case --the fact that he got
sentenced to 10 years?

No, but Denny Walsh of the Sacramento Bee said that Wong had dropped the
obstruction of justice case against Epis because he'd gotten a 10-year
mandatory minimum. And things could have been a lot worse if they'd pushed
it?.

For putting an account of his own case on his own website?

Epis said that he'd posted it to bring people to the courtroom and that he
wasn't trying to jury tamper. But they could have looked at his phone calls
to supporters and tried to build a case against him and them--a conspiracy.
They didn't. I actually think the Department of Justice showed some restraint.

I got the impression that some of the witnesses that came today would not
have convicted Bryan Epis. One of them, instead of throwing the piece of
literature away, gave it to her kid.

These women might not have been selected for the Epis jury, but if we
hadn't had this run-in with the judge, things might have been less
problematic for him. That's what I've learned from this. I'm never going
to go back and be involved in that kind of thing again. It was negative for
me. I can't do it again. I can't say "I didn't know." And it's negative for
the defendant, because they're only trying to reach out and grasp what they
can, and they don't understand what damage they're doing to themselves by
causing hysteria and in some sense trying to skirt the court.

Did you have any dealings with the Fully Informed Jury Association?

They were there on June 24th, but they weren't handing out any
case-specific literature. As soon as they found out what I was handing out,
they said, "There's a problem." Until then, I didn't really put it all
together.

When is your sentencing?

February 27. I expect to get at least a year's probation.

Will you be able to use cannabis with your doctor's approval?

That's not going to be an issue. If they test me, I'll be clean. I'm going
to spend that year making the law change. Sooner or later I'm going to get
mad enough and the law's going to change. I'm going to cause enough people
to say "This is stupid, why are we doing this?" I'm not going to give up.
Even if they sent me to jail I wouldn't give up. Nope.

Have you heard from Bryan Epis?

Only that he's in Lompoc.