Etrade Closing Lynch IRA

ccl .420th centETrade closing Lynch's IRA because he was "arrested for selling marijuana"

Lynch Loses Appeal in 9th Circuit

9th Circuit Court BuildingLynch loses in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals but wins a McIntosh hearing September 13, 2018

Lynch Files Supreme Court Certiorari

Supreme CourtFree Federal Public Defenders file Supreme Court Certiorari

Lynch Files Section 538 Motion

rickray 001 42x42Charles Lynch files Section 538 motion to end case based on new 2015 Spending Bill

Rorahbacher-Farr Letter to Inspector General

Letter to Inspector GeneralCongressmen Sam Farr and Dana Rorabacher write letter to Inspector General

Supreme Court Motions

Supreme Court Certiorari

LYNCH vs USA

March 11, 2019 Free Federal Public Defenders file Supreme Court Certiorari in ongoing 12 year Federal Medical Marijuana Prosecution of Charles Lynch.


Solicitor General Files Opposition

May 15,2019 Government files Opposition in Lynch vs USA

Government files Opposition in Lynch vs USA asking Supreme Court to not hear the case

The prospective juror responded: “You finally said something I can relate to. I understand that completely. I believe there is something called jury nullification, that if you believe * * * the law is wrong * * * you don’t have to convict a person. That’s it.”
At a minimum, it was unreasonable for petitioner to proceed to run a multi-million dollar marijuana business based on a short, non-specific conversation with a DEA employee whose name and position he did not know (or at least failed to record), without even attempting to follow up or seek more detailed guidance.
Finally, the petition should be denied because the case comes to the Court in an interlocutory posture. This Court “generally await[s] final judgment in the lower courts before exercising [its] certiorari jurisdiction.”...In addition to remanding for resentencing, the court of appeals also instructed the district court to address on remand petitioner’s argument regarding the appropriations rider.
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
Respectfully submitted.
NOEL J. FRANCISCO
Solicitor General
BRIAN A. BENCZKOWKSI
Assistant Attorney General
FINNUALA K. TESSIER
Attorney

CATO files Amicus Brief in Lynch vs USA

April 15,2019 CATO Institute files Amicus Brief in Lynch vs USA

CATO Institute files Amicus Brief in Lynch vs USA

Attached, please find the Cato Institute’s amicus brief, urging the Supreme Court to hear your case. I think Cato did an excellent job! A. Yates Federal Public Defender
Cato’s concern in this case is ensuring that coercive anti-nullification jury instructions are not so coercive as to destroy the notion of jury independence and further erode the participation of citizen juries in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Lynch’s case perfectly illustrates why jury independence is both a necessary and a proper feature of our criminal justice system. Even assuming Lynch’s prosecution and conviction were technically lawful, they were manifestly unjust.

Federal Public Defenders file Corrections

April 11,2019 Federal Public Defenders file Corrections

Federal Public Defenders file Corrections to Supreme Court Certiorari

With consent of Matthew Guarnieri counsel for the US...
the corrected petition updates references and citations to US vs Dougherty, to reflect the correct case name and circuit court, and does not include any other changes.

Solicitor General Files for Extension

April 9,2019 Solicitor General Files Extension

Solicitor General Files for Extension Lynch vs USA

Solicitor General of the United States, Noel J. Francisco, has filed for an Extension in Lynch vs USA. Click the link button below to see the request on the Supreme Court's page.

Lynch Files Supreme Court Certiorari

March 11, 2019 Lynch Files Supreme Court Certiorari

Free Federal Public Defenders file Supreme Court Certiorari in USA vs Lynch, Lynch vs USA

Lynch vs USA
The questions presented are:
1. May a trial judge issue a coercive anti-nullification instruction to criminal jurors?
2. May a federal defendant present an entrapment-by-estoppel defense based on implicit government assurances that his conduct is legal, as this Court and the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have held, or must the assurances be express, as the Ninth Circuit held in Petitioner’s case?

Donate today!

News