Nick began by thanking the court and saying that the unheard of length of the sentencing hearing was due to the government’s insistence on bringing a case unsupported by facts. Nick described Teague as a “sacrificial lamb” in the power struggle between Washington D.C. and California over medical marijuana laws. They are using him to “send a message.”

Much time was spent discussing the calculation of sentencing guidelines. Nick argued that Michael was eligible for 4 levels of downward departure due to acceptance of responsibility and the safety valve exception. He argued that Michael’s case was extraordinary and “outside the heartland”. Nick pointed out Charles Breyer’s 1 day sentence in the Ed Rosenthal case and more recently, Judge Fitzgerald’s ruling of 6 months home-detention in the case of Steve McWilliams in San Diego.

“This case is not worth more than that, your honor.” He said that serving political gains and policy in Washington D.C. was not within the heartland of the guidelines created by the sentencing commission.

“If not for Prop 215, he’d be doing probation.”

Nick finished his statements by reading a letter to the judge by Michael’s mother. She again thanked the judge and “appreciated his careful consideration”. She went on to explain that they had always tried to live “law abiding lives” and to think that her son was being used in a “power struggle was frightening”. She had known of his medical condition and had seen how medical marijuana helped him. She ended by asking for compassion from the judge.

U.S. attorney Andy Stopler fumbled with his computer to get his power point presentation in order. He hammered on the issue of the gun, knowing Judge Carter’s personal feelings on the issue. At the previous hearing, Carter read extensively from an opinion in which he dissented from the majority on whether a gun need be discharged in order to be considered as an element of the crime. Judge Carter felt strongly that merely having a loaded gun in your hand ready to use was sufficient grounds for charging someone with the use of a weapon in the commission of the crime. Whether or not Michael loaded the weapon was something the court would never be sure of. The fact that he had two magazine clips full in the dresser next to his bed made it hard for the judge to believe that he had forgotten about the gun as Michael claimed during the case.

Since the facts of the case did not support the government’s initial theory that Teague was a “gun toting drug dealer,” the U.S. attorney changed his theory. Stopler made a point to say that because there were no pay/owe sheets, no money found at the scene or no evidence of drug related traffic he was conceding that Michael was only a minor drug dealer, however that was still a drug dealer. Even small time drug dealers would need a gun to protect themselves and their customers. He called on the judge to depart upwards on the issue of the firearm. It was “clearly improbable that the weapon was not connected to the offense.”

Stopler also made points on the disparity between what Michael said in the interview with police and what he said on the stand. The air was heating up in the courtroom as the air-conditioning is turned off after 6pm. The repetitious nature of Stopler’s argument prompted the judge, “Get on with it”.

The legitimacy of recommendations written by Dr.’s Eidelman and Schoenfeld were brought into question. Since Eidelman’s license is under review by the medical board for writing recommendations for marijuana, it didn’t look very good to the judge. Teague’s recommendation from Schoenfeld was at issue due to some discrepancy with dates.

Following the end of Stopler’s arguments and a short recess, the judge returned to the bench and described the battle of medical marijuana between the feds and the state as the “perfect storm of controversy. It implicates the war on drugs, mandatory minimum sentencing and federalism vs. states’ rights.” Judge Carter firmly believes that “curtailing narcotics maintains a democratic society.” Society however has experienced a seed change. “In the 70’s, you would go to prison for a few baggies, now it’s a divertible offense.” Perhaps its generational, but he said there has definitely been a shift.

The judge talked about how the torture death of DEA agent Enrique Camareno in Mexico catalyzed the war on drugs, about how Clinton’s explanation that he “didn’t inhale” did not prevent him from becoming President and how marijuana use no longer precludes military and law enforcement occupations. He tied all this together by bringing up Prop 215 and California and how the issue of state vs. federal rights had been settled during the Civil War at Gettysburg. “Federalism rules-end of story. At the same time, sovereignty comes with responsibility and needs to be exercised with discretion. So, are we going to listen to the people?”

Judge Carter continued on at length about the sentencing guidelines and how “wise or unwise it will be left to history.” A few comments regarding the shift of power to prosecutors, “cookie cutter justice” with a move away from the uniqueness of cases and Carter said, “That brings me to you,” looking at Teague.

“You haven’t been thrust into this, you have thrust yourself into this.”

“This isn’t the all-American dope smoking family.” Indeed, Mrs. Teague is a dispatcher for the police department, Mr. Teague is ex-military, they have a son who is a police officer and Michael’s grandparents work as correctional officers in Arizona.

“You are a grower with a scale and gun in the hall. You took donations and you think I’m dumb. I call donations sales,” the judge said before turning to the government.

Judge Carter scorned the U.S. attorney once more regarding the inability to turn over the C.I. This deprived the court of the right to know whether Teague actually sold marijuana and stunted his ability to make a meaningful determination in the case.

Back to the gun, the judge made references to McWilliams, Rosenthal and Scott Imler stating that there were no guns involved in any of those cases.

“The gun is disturbing. It sets you apart from the Rosenthals of the world.”

Carter denied downward departure on the issues of heartland and extraordinary family circumstances. He did however grant Teague a couple of levels down for the confusion created by the federal and state dichotomy in the law.

After calculating the starting point of the guideline to 17, he lowered him to 15, which carries 18-24 months in federal prison.

“Prop 215 was not a pathway to legalization.”

“But for that gun, this would be a substantially lower sentence.”

The final judgment issued was 18 months, a fine of $500.00 and a 4 year supervised release program complete with drug testing, no firearms and a warrant less search condition. Nick argued for 500 hours of drug treatment that will reduce the sentence by 1 year. This means if all goes well, Michael Teague should be out in 6-7 months. Nick argued for Michael’s bond as he waits for the appeal, but to no avail. The marshals handcuffed and removed Teague from the courtroom.

Out in the hall, Nick stated that he would start the appeals process tomorrow. He disagreed with the judge’s interpretation of the battle of Gettysburg saying that it only decided federal sovereignty in matters of equality regarding race, not all aspects of conduct.

“The founding fathers need vindication. No centralized power,” is what the Constitution is all about.

Michael will remain in custody pending appeal.