US Judge Weinstein Says Marijuana Habit No Reason to Revoke Supervised Release
Faulting himself and fellow trial judges for treating defendants on supervised released with a heavy hand for smoking marijuana, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein said he would eschew sending violators to jail solely for using the substance.
July 05, 2018 at 06:55 PM
5 minute read
Judge Jack Weinstein. Photo: David Handschuh/ALM Faulting himself and fellow trial judges for treating defendants on supervised released with a heavy hand for smoking marijuana, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York said he would eschew sending violators to jail solely for using the substance.
Listen to experts discuss the vast differences and patchwork regulation state-to-state as cannabis legalization continues to grow across the U.S. Listen Now.
In a 42-page ruling to end supervised release for a defendant who is a habitual marijuana smoker and who was out on supervised release for a drug distribution charge, Weinstein said that, despite widespread acceptance and changing societal and legal attitudes toward marijuana, it remains illegal at the federal level for all uses. The judge said there is “no useful purpose” in continuing to punish defendants who use marijuana but who are otherwise rehabilitated. “As a result of these errors in our sentencing practice, money and the time of our probation officers are wasted and supervisees are unnecessarily burdened,” the judge said. Weinstein's ruling concerns the case of Tyran Trotter, 22, a longtime marijuana user who was busted in 2015 in a dragnet that swept up 36 drug users, drug dealers and a New York State Corrections officer who prosecutors said were associated with a Queens-based gang called the Paper Chasing Goons, a sect of the Bloods. Trotter eventually pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin and was sentenced to a two-year prison term with three years of supervised release. While on supervised release, the U.S. Probation Department reported that Trotter violated the terms of his release by using marijuana and failing to comply with drug treatment orders, a charge that can carry mandatory incarceration and to which Trotter pleaded not guilty. The Probation Department recommended putting Trotter back in prison for an additional four months and tacking an additional two years onto his supervised release. The judge said that Trotter has otherwise stayed out of trouble since his release from prison and has been working. Keeping him under supervision is unlikely to break his marijuana addiction, a habit he has maintained since he was 12 years old, the judge said. Considering this, the Weinstein said, keeping Trotter under supervised release will likely result in him entering an “endless cycle” of him being sent back to prison, getting out on supervised release and so forth. Jeremy Schneider and Lucas Anderson of Rothman, Schneider, Soloway & Stern represented Trotter. “It would presumptuous of me to think that I could say it better than Judge Weinstein,” Schneider said in an email when asked to comment on the ruling. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nomi Berenson and Lauren Elbert of the Eastern District appeared for the government. A spokesman for the Eastern District U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment. Weinstein used his decision to take a broad view of changing marijuana laws and supervised release, which was created in 1984 after the abolition of federal parole and, the judge said, with the intent of rehabilitating defendants, not punishing them. Using revocation of supervised release as a means of punishment, which is included in the statute, is “foreign” to the purpose of supervised release, Weinstein said. Despite continued marijuana prohibition at the federal level, states and cities have veered toward decriminalization—in New York City, police have been directed to issue tickets for smoking marijuana in public rather than arresting violators, while the Manhattan and Brooklyn district attorneys have said they will decline to prosecute certain low-level pot offenses. Additionally, federal district justices “overwhelmingly” believe that mandatory revocation of probation and supervised release because of drug violations is not ideal, Weinstein said. The judge pointed to the results of a 2014 survey by the U.S. Sentencing Commission revealing that 85 percent of judges surveyed said that illegal drug possession should not be the basis for revoking a defendant's supervised release and that 94 percent of judges requested sanctions other than incarceration for violations. “Violating a condition of supervised release can lead to—and in instances must lead to— additional incarceration,” the judge said. “This situation can trap some defendants, particularly substances abusers, in a cycle where they oscillate between supervised release and prison.” In the Eastern District, according to Probation Department data contained in Weinstein's ruling, about 13 percent of revocations are drug-related. On supervised release generally, Weinstein said it's become overused: it is required by statute in less than half of federal cases, but he and his fellow Eastern District judges impose it in 94 percent of cases. And the “reflexive” use of supervised release can increase recidivism among low-risk defendants, the judge said, presenting evidence that the requirements imposed upon them by supervised release can break up their social networks.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250