home>>>

Sentencing to Proceed in Bryan Epis Case,
Evidentiary Hearing in the Works

Vanessa Nelson Compassionate Coalition

Sacramento, CA June 7, 2006 -- In a status conference in federal court on May 22nd, 2006, Judge Frank Damrell Jr. granted in entirety the government's motion for reconsideration of Bryan Epis's case.  Now preparing for the evidentiary hearing that will be scheduled on July 17th, the judge directed attorneys on both sides to update and resubmit briefs on the relevant issues in this increasingly controversial case.

Imprisoned in 2002, Bryan Epis was the second medical marijuana patient convicted in federal court after the passage of California's Proposition 215.  Since the case was federal and the United States government does not recognize legitimate medicinal use of cannabis under state law, Epis was not allowed to mention that he was growing for medical purposes or even to use the term "medical marijuana" during his trial.  He served over two years of a ten-year sentence for growing medical marijuana for himself and other patients, but was released in August 2004 in response to the 9th Circuit Court's decision in favor of Angel Raich.  A year later, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling in the Raich case, and U.S. Prosecutor Samuel Wong promptly filed for resentencing in Epis's case.  Quickly, the court proceedings erupted with contentious issues including claims about improper filing and unlawful destruction of evidence by police officers.

Having initially issued an order for discovery regarding the alleged misconduct, Judge Damrell later withdrew this order on the grounds that he lacked the authority to issue it in the first place.  According to Damrell, claims of misconduct would be relevant only if the proceedings over which he presided were directed at reconsidering the verdict.  "My role is more limited, " said Judge Damrell at the May 22nd status conference.  "I see my role in this case as based solely on considering Raich and resentencing, and that's what I'm doing.  Overturning the verdict would be for the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court."

Defense Attorney Brenda Grantland, however, was clearly dissatisfied with the judge's simplistic disavowal of authority, arguing that the issue of improperly destroyed evidence was indeed relevant to resentencing proceedings.  According to Grantland, one of the reasons for the relevance is that the government continues to rely on falsified information in its sentencing memorandums.  "What will you do during the hearing when we talk about the tainted evidence?" Grantland asked the judge pointedly.  "The agents lied about the amount of evidence taken, then destroyed it before they testified."

Prosecutor Wong spoke up suddenly in response to this comment, claiming that evidence was not destroyed prior to testimony.  Without further substantiation to this claim, however, the superficial denial served only to perpetuate the 'he said/she said' nature of the resentencing proceedings thus far.   

Judge Damrell quieted the quarreling attorneys by ordering the defense to resubmit briefs on issues raised in the resentencing proceedings that would require an evidentiary hearing.  He then went on to set deadlines for the filing of these briefs as well as the prosecution's opposition.  Input from both sides, the judge said, would give him a clearer picture of the scope for the upcoming evidentiary hearing, which he will schedule during Bryan Epis's next status conference on July 17th.

Courtroom bickering quickly resurfaced, however, when Judge Damrell urged Grantland to abandon her practice of leaving sealed memorandums in his office rather than following the common procedure of putting such documents in the designated vault.  "I don't see a need for sealed memorandums in my office," the judge told the defense attorney.  "Mrs. Grantland, you're the only lawyer who does this."

Grantland was quick to respond, explaining her actions as stemming from concerns about confidentiality.  She then accused the prosecution of breaching security procedures regarding the sealed memorandums, adding the comment, "Mr. Wong has somehow gotten his hands on documents from my client's computer."

Her claim again elicited an outburst from Wong, who asked to be put on record in denial of these accusations, then complained to the judge, "Ms. Grantland continues to accuse me of wrongdoing in this case."

Judge Damrell, sighing deeply and appearing fatigued in the face of such argument, told the prosecutor that he need not worry about such accusations unless they were addressed by the judge himself.  Wong, refusing to be pacified by the judge's assurances, went on to request permission to see documents in which the defense accused him of misconduct, prompting protest from the defense that such access could not be granted because the documents in question were under seal.  Judge Damrell, again in the role of referee, demonstrated diplomacy by assuring the defense that sealed documents would be kept confidential, while simultaneously assuaging the prosecution's worries by promising that the accusations made in the documents would not form a basis for the court's decisions.  

Both sides now partially placated, the judge proceeded to conclude the conference by ordering the prosecution to direct agents to preserve all evidence relating to Epis's case.  At this point, Wong asked for a break in order to consult with a DEA agent who was sitting in the courtroom audience.  After a momentary conference, Wong returned to his stand to accept the judge's orders, indicating that the agent had agreed to halt any destruction of court evidence in the Epis case, at least for the time being.

Bryan Epis, along with the notoriously adversarial attorneys in his case, will return to court in front of Judge Damrell on July 17th at 9:30am.  The proceedings will take place in Courtroom 2 on the 15th floor at 501 I Street in Sacramento, CA.  This will be a significant status conference, as the judge will schedule the evidentiary and resentencing hearings at this time.  Medical cannabis advocates are urged to attend this appearance to show solidarity and demonstrate to the court their support for Bryan Epis in his long-running struggle for justice.