Supreme Court Considers Taking Case Of Man Given Life In Prison For Growing Pot

Lee Carroll Brooker, a 76-year-old disabled army veteran, says he was growing the marijuana in his Alabama back yard to alleviate his own health problems.

The US supreme court is poised on Friday to decide whether to take on the case of a 76-year-old dis­abled army vet­er­an hand­ed a sen­tence of life in prison with­out parole for grow­ing mar­i­jua­na in his back yard to alle­vi­ate his own health prob­lems. If the court does not review the case, Lee Carroll Brooker is des­tined to die behind bars even though judges in his native Alabama have declared this was not an appro­pri­ate pun­ish­ment. Brooker is argu­ing that such a hefty sanc­tion for mar­i­jua­na pos­ses­sion vio­lates the eighth amend­ment to the US con­sti­tu­tion because it amounts to cru­el and unusu­al punishment.

He has been sub­ject­ed to strict sen­tenc­ing manda­to­ry min­i­mum laws in Alabama because the cannabis offense involves a cer­tain weight of the drug and comes on top of con­vic­tions for armed rob­bery more than 30 years ago in Florida when Brooker held up a series of liquor stores, his tri­al lawyer John Steensland said on Wednesday. Brooker was arrest­ed in 2011 when police vis­it­ed his address in Cottonwood, south­ern Alabama, on an unre­lat­ed mat­ter and found that he was grow­ing mar­i­jua­na behind the house. The police seized 34 plants. They were sent for foren­sic analy­sis and weighed in their entire­ty, includ­ing the stalks, which are not used in cannabis con­sump­tion. The plants weighed a total of 2.85lb, which placed the haul above the thresh­old of pos­sess­ing 2.2lb of the drug that, in con­junc­tion with cer­tain pri­or felony con­vic­tions, trig­gers the use of life with­out parole as the manda­to­ry sen­tence under Alabama law.

The actu­al usable amount of mar­i­jua­na from the con­tra­band was a frac­tion of the 2.85 lbs and clear­ly under the thresh­old of 2.2 lbs,” accord­ing to court doc­u­ments filed in Brooker’s case. “The evi­dence clear­ly indi­cat­ed that Brooker was sim­ply grow­ing said mar­i­jua­na plans for his own per­son­al use in an effort to self-med­icate,” the doc­u­ment added. But in announc­ing the state supreme court’s deci­sion, Alabama’s chief jus­tice, Roy Moore, issued a lengthy expla­na­tion point­ing out that the orig­i­nal tri­al judge, Larry Anderson, had said: “If the court could sen­tence you to a term that is less than life with­out parole, I would. However, the law is very spe­cif­ic … there is no discretion.”

And Moore him­self added that Brooker’s sen­tence was “exces­sive and unjus­ti­fied” and urged the Alabama leg­is­la­ture to “revis­it the statu­to­ry sen­tenc­ing scheme” for the state. Brooker’s attor­ney Steensland said: “The judges’ hands were tied.” Now his for­mer client is tak­ing his case to the US supreme court, and is being rep­re­sent­ed by Bryan Stevenson, exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Montgomery-based advo­ca­cy group Equal Justice Initiative. Marijuana for med­ical use is now legal in 23 states and the District of Columbia. In addi­tion, the Pennsylvania leg­is­la­ture on Wednesday sent a bill legal­iz­ing med­ical mar­i­jua­na to the state gov­er­nor to sign. Last September, Roy Moore, the chief jus­tice of Alabama, said sen­tenc­ing laws need­ed to be changed in the state in light of Brooker’s plight, after the state’s supreme court reluc­tant­ly refused to over­turn an appeal to the man’s sen­tence. Moore said there were “grave flaws” in Alabama’s sen­tenc­ing sys­tem when a per­son could be sen­tenced to life with­out parole for a non-vio­lent drug offense.

Steensland sub­mit­ted mate­r­i­al dur­ing his client’s tri­al and sen­tenc­ing pro­ceed­ings that showed he was in the US army for nine years after join­ing up at the age of 17 and was fre­quent­ly post­ed abroad, com­ing under ene­my fire on tours in Lebanon and the Dominican Republic. He rose to the rank of sergeant in the 82nd air­borne divi­sion and was award­ed the com­bat infantry­man badge for par­tic­i­pat­ing in active ground com­bat, accord­ing to court doc­u­ments. “It’s a bru­tal case, egre­gious. He was using mar­i­jua­na for his own use for lin­ger­ing trou­bles with his per­son­al health, some relat­ed to his mil­i­tary ser­vice. We had hoped for a more rea­son­able set­tle­ment, but the judges at tri­al and appeal had their hands tied,” Steensland said. The attor­ney said there was no evi­dence and had been no claims that Brooker had ever tried to sell the drug. He said his crimes in Florida as a much younger man were linked to a time in his life when he drank heav­i­ly instead of seek­ing med­ical treat­ment for phys­i­cal and men­tal ailments.

It doesn’t excuse any of this but it puts it in some per­spec­tive. He robbed some liquor stores and no one was hurt. It’s seri­ous but he served time for that. When I rep­re­sent­ed him I found him to be a nice man,” he said. Families Against Mandatory Minimums (Famm), a Washington DC-based lob­by­ing and advo­ca­cy group, has filed a friend of the court brief with Scotus on Brooker’s behalf.“It is hard to under­stand how, in a civ­i­lized soci­ety, the law can tol­er­ate that a 76-year-old dec­o­rat­ed, dis­abled com­bat vet­er­an is sen­tenced to die in prison for grow­ing mar­i­jua­na in his back­yard for per­son­al use,” the brief states. Famm’s brief adds that the way manda­to­ry min­i­mum laws shift dis­cre­tion in sen­tenc­ing away from the “inde­pen­dent judi­cia­ry … can lead to arbi­trary, capri­cious and unfair sentences”.

Mary Price, Famm gen­er­al coun­sel, said that if Scotus decid­ed to take Brooker’s case, and ulti­mate­ly ruled in his favour, it would send a mes­sage “far and wide” that manda­to­ry min­i­mum sen­tences “can be so arbi­trary and so inhu­mane that they offend the US con­sti­tu­tion”. http://​www​.the​guardian​.com/​s​o​c​i​e​t​y​/​2​0​1​6​/​a​p​r​/​1​5​/​l​e​e​-​c​a​r​r​o​l​l​-​b​r​o​o​k​e​r​-​a​l​a​b​a​m​a​-​m​a​r​i​j​u​a​n​a​-​s​e​n​t​e​nce