Charges, "Guilty by Association"?

What is the name of your state? California.

One of my co-workers, her boyfriend, and their housemate were arrested today on drug (marijuana) charges. Their housemate ("Ian") was the possessor, and he is being charged with four felonies.

My co-worker and her boyfriend are being charged with three felonies each, and my understanding is that the charges are on the basis of their knowing that "Ian" was growing, but didn't report it to the authorities.

I'd had a conversation with this co-worker sometime back about marijuana, and she stated in no uncertain terms that she and her boyfriend neither smoke, nor cultivate, nor distribute the stuff. At this time, I have reason to believe that.

She and her boyfriend are decent people, despite a stupid habit of letting idiots stay with them. So, my questions are:

1. What to expect? How does this process work, how much time will they spend in the slammer before going to court, what's the likelihood that they're looking at a prison stay, etc.? Keep in mind, I'm a pretty clean dude that's never seen the inside of a jail cell. Or the outside of one, for that matter.

2. How can I help them? Nobody here is rich; 10,000$ worth of lawyer's fees amounts to a couple years' debt, at least. So, in addition to "help find a decent attorney", what can I do to help them out?

3. In your collective experience, what are the charges probably going to be against the co-worker and her boyfriend?

4. Where can I get more information on the relevant laws, appropriate defenses, procedures, etc.?

I'm not very concerned about their housemate. Honestly, he was doing it, he knew what he was doing, he was guilty, these are the consequences. I wouldn't even be concerned if my co-worker and her boyfriend were being charged with misdemeanors, probation, etc. for living with this guy. However, they're two good people, and I don't want to see them get railroaded by a handful of felonies each because they chose to look the other way.

And, lastly, I read through a bunch of the archives before posting this. If IAAL chooses to respond, I hope he'll stop to wonder if he'd say the same things to a person's face. Thanks.

More Information

Some additional information: this may be a federal case. My boss and I went to the house today to pick up their dogs (to keep the dogs out of the pound; the officers there asked us to come get them), and they were wearing DOJ jackets.

So, at this point, I've done some research but don't even know the relevant jurisdiction.

Thaumaturgy said:

Some additional information: this may be a federal case. My boss and I went to the house today to pick up their dogs (to keep the dogs out of the pound; the officers there asked us to come get them), and they were wearing DOJ jackets.

So, at this point, I've done some research but don't even know the relevant jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Based on this tidbit of info, the strongest suggestion to you would be for you to elect one of the following two tactics.

1. Starting at 6:00 A.M. tomorrow morning, begin to "Google" these same and other questions until midnight that same day. Repeat this same thing each day for twenty consecutive days. At the end of this twenty day research period you will have an established, well-founded, clearer understanding of what is to be expected.

OR

2. Enter your friends' home if permitted by the DOJ, take your friends' telephone book, rip the yellow pages out of that same phone book under the heading "Attorneys", staple the loose pages together, go home, set this "leaflet" on your coffee table, sit down with your telephone, and one by one, begin contacting each attorney in your local area.

Thaumaturgy said:

Some additional information: this may be a federal case. My boss and I went to the house today to pick up their dogs (to keep the dogs out of the pound; the officers there asked us to come get them), and they were wearing DOJ jackets.

So, at this point, I've done some research but don't even know the relevant jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

It's likely the CA Department of Justice. The feds would be DEA for this sort of thing. Plus, the feds out here rarely get involved in grows that the state can handle the prosecution of.

The roommates likely face cultivation charges as well. The state will show that they profited in some way about the illegal venture their dope growing roommate was involved in ... rents, food, TV, movies, something. Also, by their having full knowledge of - and living with - the cultivation, they likely also face charges involving a conspiracy to sell or cultivate marijuana.

They can likely help themselves by telling the truth (if, indeed, they are telling the truth) and diming off the grower. But, they will still need an attorney.

And as far as punishment, it's too early to tell. And without knowing the charges (code sections) they currently are charged with - as well as any criminal history - there is no way to guess what they face.

- Carl

Carl, thanks for the info. By the way, I spent a couple of frustrating years living in your neck of the woods. If you're not working in Mendo county, then I know which county you're working in, and that DA's pretty ... interesting ... too. I wouldn't want your job.

Florid-aise, thanks for the "insight". We're already working on finding them suitable attorney representation. Now, I might not know a heck of a lot about criminal law, but my experience in contract law is that it's just stupid to sit back and let the attorney do all the work for you. Also, fortunately, my friends don't happen to own the only available copy of the local telephone book.

So, I'll be following both of your suggestions. Hopefully, I can get an occasional answer here. So long as Carl and a couple of others are around, anyway.

CdwJava said:

The roommates likely face cultivation charges as well. The state will show that they profited in some way about the illegal venture their dope growing roommate was involved in ... rents, food, TV, movies, something. Also, by their having full knowledge of - and living with - the cultivation, they likely also face charges involving a conspiracy to sell or cultivate marijuana.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised by the conspiracy charge, but the cultivation charge does surprise me a little. Assuming that the grower was also gainfully employed, would the prosecutors have to prove that the roommates personally profited from the growing, even if they weren't involved? How does it get handled if the grower also has a legitimate means of income?

I know, this is just guesswork anyway, and "git a lawyur, git a lawyur, git a lawyur".

Thaumaturgy said:

I'm not surprised by the conspiracy charge, but the cultivation charge does surprise me a little. Assuming that the grower was also gainfully employed, would the prosecutors have to prove that the roommates personally profited from the growing, even if they weren't involved? How does it get handled if the grower also has a legitimate means of income?

I know, this is just guesswork anyway, and "git a lawyur, git a lawyur, git a lawyur".

Click to expand...

The presumption will be that they benefited from the illegal enterprise. If he bought them a meal, treated them to beer, paid for even his share of the rent/mortgage/utilities with drug proceeds, then they can be shown to have profited. It's really not that difficult to show unless he had a grow in some hidden part of the home that they never had access to and should never have reasonably suspected.

- Carl

I'm still gathering information and looking for attorneys on this.

Is there a way to find a case record for the local public defender, or any other way to determine their competence or degree of interest in their clients?

Thaumaturgy said:

I'm still gathering information and looking for attorneys on this.

Is there a way to find a case record for the local public defender, or any other way to determine their competence or degree of interest in their clients?

Click to expand...

How do you judge "degree of interest"? And in most cases, you aren't going to have a heck of a lot of choice in your public defender. You want choice? Pay for your own counsel.

I imagine that the track records of the attorneys can be available, but it can be deceiving. Most the cases they take are going to be losrs and plea deals - it's the nature of the beast. They get the folks that more than likely committed the offense, and don't have a lot of resources to defend themselves. Therefore, they may tend to have a "poor" (on its face) track record.

- Carl