Stacy

United States v. Stacy

Good Law
734 F. Supp. 2d 1074·2010 WL 2757320·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69648
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJuly 12, 2010Case 09cr3695 BTMCalifornia4,004 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moskowitz, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRESENT CERTAIN DEFENSES AND GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENSES

Defendant James Dean Stacy has filed a motion to allow him to present an entrapment-by-estoppel defense at trial, or, in the alternative, a public authority defense. The United States has filed motions in limine to preclude an entrapment defense, advice of counsel defense, “medical marijuana” defense, medical necessity defense, and public authority defense. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion and GRANTS the United States’ motions in limine.

I. BACKGROUND

From June 2009 until September 2009, Defendant operated what he claims was a “medical marijuana collective” called “Movement in Action,” located at 1050 South Santa Fe Avenue, Vista, California. According to Defendant, he took great care to make sure that his cooperative was formed and operated in compliance with California law, specifically the Compassionate Use Act (“CUA”) and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”), Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5 et seq.

In July and August of 2009, Defendant sold marijuana on three separate occasions to an undercover…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.