Pubdate: Thu, 20 Mar 2008
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Page: B3, Metro Section
Copyright: 2008 The Sacramento Bee
Contact:  http://www.sacbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/376
Note: Does not publish letters from outside its circulation area.
Author: Denny Walsh
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

PAIR GET PRISON IN POT CASE

Judge Hands Out Five-Year Terms, Says It's 'A Terrible Day.'

An El Dorado County couple -- a physician and an attorney -- were 
sentenced Wednesday in Sacramento federal court to five years in 
prison for conspiring to grow and distribute marijuana.

U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said federal law left him 
with no choice but to impose on both Dr. Marion "Mollie" Fry and 
attorney Dale Schafer the mandatory minimum sentence.

But, to the delight of supporters who packed the courtroom, the judge 
allowed the pair to remain free on bail until their appeals have been decided.

The statutory minimum applied because of the number of plants -- at 
least 100 -- found by a jury in August to be the crux of a conspiracy 
to grow and distribute pot from their offices in Cool and their home 
in Greenwood.

The couple went from personal marijuana use -- radical breast cancer 
surgery in Fry's case, severe back pain and a dangerous form of 
hemophilia for Schafer -- to supplying the drug to people who came to 
them with various ailments.

Fry supplied the physician's recommendation required under California 
law, and Schafer advised clients on the legalities of medicinal use. 
Each recommendation bore the warning that possession, use or 
manufacture of marijuana under any conditions violates federal law.

They insisted they didn't expect trouble from federal narcotics 
agents because they were not selling the drug, they were careful to 
comply with California's Compassionate Use Act, and what they were 
doing was encouraged by El Dorado County narcotics officers.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Anne Pings consistently has argued that Fry 
and Schafer were motivated by greed. During the trial Pings presented 
evidence that they charged $200 for a recommendation. She also has 
argued that Fry and Schafer did not have to face the mandatory five 
years; they rejected plea deals calling for far less punishment.

Damrell said that fact troubled him.

"You had the opportunity to resolve this case, but you wanted to 
soldier on, knowing that your kid would be left behind," he told the couple.

At a break during the hearing, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Lawrence 
Brown confirmed that Fry was offered straight probation in return for 
a plea. She didn't accept, Brown said, because the deal would have 
been based in part on her serious mental health problems, and she was 
afraid of the impact that might have on the state Medical Board, 
which licenses and regulates physicians.

Damrell told Fry and Schafer they're martyrs, but he questioned 
whether their cause merited such a sacrifice, especially since they 
have children at home and help care for a grandchild.

Were it left up to him, the judge said, the punishment would be less. 
"It is a sad day, a terrible day," he said.

At the conclusion of a grueling, emotional hearing, Damrell ruled the 
couple could remain free on $25,000 bail each pending the outcome of 
their appeals.

Before imposing the sentences, Damrell told the couple: "At some 
point, it seems to me, you lost control of your lives. You let your 
passion for this drug and its salutary effects cloud your judgment.

"I'm not saying medical cannabis doesn't have a place in our 
society," Damrell said, "but federal law has not caught up with that 
notion. ... It seems to me that victimhood and self-aggrandizement 
took hold. You thought you were bulletproof."

The judge said Fry especially seemed blinded to persons working for 
the couple who were "petty criminals," and that some people who came 
to them wanted pot simply to get high.

In granting bail, however, Damrell said the exceptional circumstances 
of the case create "serious issues that need to be decided by an 
appellate court."

One of those, he noted, is the defendants' claim of entrapment. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake