Introduction
It is a well-known fact that the justice system in the United States of America is somewhat controversial because lawyers and their defendants accused of committing particular crimes can be claimed innocent in a state court, whereas the same criminal might be imprisoned by a federal judge. Marijuana possession and transmission is one of the most uncertain laws (especially in the state of California) where regular people can buy the drug by showing a medical prescription to a pharmacist. The following paper will discuss a criminal case of a man from Calaveras County who was accused of marijuana possession to compare the difference in its investigations, proceedings, and outcomes if conducted by both federal and state courts.
Discussion of the Case
To begin with, it is necessary to cover some background of the case that will be discussed in the context below. Yirtuamlak Hailu Derege is an American resident who came to the state of California approximately ten years ago with a dream of becoming a famous actor. However, he was arrested by the police and accused of marijuana possession. Due to this event in his life, the young man could not find a worthy job to make his living. There are many people like Derege in California (approximately half a million individuals were arrested within the past decade here) (Pacula, Chriqui, Reichmann, & Terry-Mcelrath, 2002). All these people now have a chance to be justified due to the new legislative regulations in the state that do not impose any punishment on individuals who abuse this popular drug (Davenport & Caulkins, 2016). It is necessary to mention that Derege used his cannabis prescription to buy the drug and sell it on the streets of Hollywood, after which “he was arrested and charged with a felony for transporting marijuana with intentions to distribute — a rap he thinks was heavy-handed” (Kuznia & Zezima, 2017, p. 1). The man had remained on probation without even knowing it until 2017.
The investigation of the case discussed above was immediate and was conducted by the patrolling police officers. They spotted Derege distributing the purchased marijuana on the streets of Hollywood illegally. According to Pacula et al. (2002), California was a friendly state regarding the use of marijuana in its territory since the 1970’s. Therefore, many local people did not have any fears regarding their possible arrests or even sentences to several years in jail. “At least nine states have passed laws expunging or reducing marijuana convictions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures” (Kuznia & Zezima, 2017, p. 3). It must be mentioned that the case of Derege was handled by his lawyer Omar Figueroa from Sebastopol who specializes in helping people with problems that emerged due to drug abuse or transmission.
Comparison of State and Federal Courts
Indeed, there could have been another outcome if the accused person was supported by another lawyer at a federal court who did not know all the specific aspects of appropriate regulations in the entire country’s territory. Perhaps, Derege could have been sentenced to more than five years in prison. The defendant also could pay a $250 000 fine for selling less than 50 kilograms of the drug (NORML, 2018). However, the felony he received for marijuana distribution could not be avoided in any other instance, regardless of the court level.
The case described above was indeed handled by a state court because it did not meet the requirements of an investigation that had to be necessarily conducted by a judge at a federal court. Also, it is necessary to mention that Derege violated the law of the California state, and hence, he was to be judged in one of such legislative institutions. The investigation of the case did not last long as the police officers who caught the defendant had both a video and witnesses that proved the fact that Derege was distributing the drugs near a McDonald’s fast-food restaurant. Therefore, the accused person did not even deny that he committed a crime.
In comparison, if the case had been investigated by a federal judge, he or she would have considered many more issues that could have been noticed during the arrest procedure. The federal judge would also ask the police patrol whether the defendant had a chance to sell cannabis to other people or not. If so, the buyers would also be summoned to the trial. Not only this would make the situation and its details more accurate, but it would also reveal who buys the drug and how much money can people earn by distributing marijuana on the streets. Results of such an investigation would be useful in other similar cases and trials that might be somehow related to this particular crime. Therefore, if this investigation was conducted in a federal court, it would be more analytical and would attract many other individuals who were suspected of participating in the crime. Hence, the difference between the two courts would be tremendous.
It must be mentioned that the stage of arrest was spontaneous because it was a case that was to be handled by a state court anyway. However, the drug dealer would not be arrested immediately if it was a federal crime. In this instance, his actions would be analyzed and recorded thoroughly. Only if detectives had enough clues and relevant evidence, Derege would be ordered to arrest.
To compare the severity of the punishment that could be imposed by a federal court to what was announced at a state institution, it should be remembered that the investigation process would not take long in the latter case. According to the data presented by NORML (2018), it becomes evident that the distribution of cannabis has more severe punitive measures than its possession, cultivation, and paraphernalia. However, the case of Derege was supposed to be treated like possession because the distribution of the drug’s small amount is not considered to be a significant crime (NORML, 2018). Moreover, such cases are common in the state of California (Davenport & Caulkins, 2016).
The legal regulations regarding any actions with cannabis became less severe than they used to be several decades ago. For instance, a contemporary criminal can be required to pay only a $1000 fine for the first offense, whereas in the 2000s this sum could amount to $3000. In turn, if a federal judge overviewed the given case, he or she might have mentioned that Derege could have been distributing the drug within 1000 feet from a school (regardless of whether it was public or private). Official representatives of NORML (2018) claim that the penalty is doubled if a marijuana distributor works near an educational institution. However, this law is invalid if a person sells drugs in the territories of colleges and universities.
The outcomes (sentencing) of the case also depended on the level of a court. If a federal judge had seen that this was the first offense, he or she would have the right to sentence the young man to the term of one year. However, if a person is caught twice, one is to spend from 15 days to two years in prison. In turn, when a drug dealer is arrested subsequently, this individual is expected to spend from 90 days to three years in jail (NORML, 2018). It is essential to state that Derege confessed that he distributed drugs on the streets of Hollywood, which had a particular influence on the state judge’s attitude towards the young man. If the defendant had tried to justify himself, the proceeding would have required much more time and the latter judge could have imposed a $1000 fine on Derege. Instead, the young man went out of the building with just a felony.
As such cases are common and, hence, not significant in the state of California, similar trials are rarely organized in the Los Angeles County Superior Court or Metropolitan Courthouse. Usually, drug dealers and abusers are invited to such institutions as the Bellflower Courthouse and San Fernando Courthouse (Dioun & Haveman, 2015). These legislative institutions specialize in minor crimes and cases that do not require much investigation.
Conclusion
Yirtuamlak Hailu Derege was accused of selling marijuana on the streets of Hollywood, Los Angeles. The young man was immediately arrested by the police patrol passing by at that moment. As a punishment, Derege received a felony that did not allow him to find a worthy job for almost 10 years. The man confessed that he was selling the drug and regretted what he did a decade ago. There could be significant changes to the outcomes of the trial if the case had been investigated by a federal judge, Derege had been distributing marijuana near any school, if the trial had happened in another state, or if the young man had been caught more than once.
References
Davenport, S. S., & Caulkins, J. P. (2016). Evolution of the United States marijuana market in the decade of liberalization before full legalization. Journal of Drug Issues, 46(4), 411-427. Web.
Dioun, C., & Haveman, H. (2015). The price of legitimacy: Regulation, risk and uncertainty in legal marijuana markets. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 13312-13312. Web.
Kuznia, R., & Zezima, K. (2017). Convicted of a marijuana crime in California? It might go away, thanks to legal pot. Web.
NORML. (2018). Working to reform marijuana laws. Web.
Pacula, R. L., Chriqui, J. F., Reichmann, D. A., & Terry-Mcelrath, Y. M. (2002). State medical marijuana laws: Understanding the laws and their limitations. Journal of Public Health Policy, 23(4), 413-423. Web.