Elasticity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> interested somewhat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I won't give many details, but by the time my
> case
> > came to the plea deal, something that I had
> been
> > arrested for had become illegal. In between
> the
> > time of my arrest and said "plea deal"
> (lengthened
> > by the court repeatedly continuing the case
> since
> > the lab results weren't conducted), the
> Analogue
> > Act had been passed. The passing of this act
> made
> > something that was factually LEGAL to possess
> in
> > April 2012... ILLEGAL to possess 2-3 months
> > later.
>
>
> The Analogue Act is meant to cover unscheduled
> analogs. So an ex post facto claim is tricky
> under this law. In particular, it would appear to
> be an uphill battle in the Fourth Circuit.
>
> Eg,
>
> "The very purpose of the statute, which is to
> prevent development of new drugs by underground
> chemists attempting to create new drugs that are
> not scheduled, necessitates some elasticity and
> prevents a specific listing of chemical analogues.
> This important legislation illustrates the
> futility of relying upon attempts to control the
> importation of existing controlled substances,
> when domestic underground chemists can create
> synthetic ones with the potential to be equally,
> or more, dangerous. The language of the statute
> provides specific restraints on law enforcement
> when it defines a controlled substance analogue
> and requires that it be intended for human
> consumption. Accordingly, the Court FINDS that the
> Analogue Act is not unconstitutionally vague on
> its face."
>
> United States v. Kleckler, 228 F. Supp 2d 720, 726
> (E.D.Va. 2002), aff’d 348 F.3d 69 (4th Cir.
> 2003)
>
> E.D. Va. Kleckler opinion:
>
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-court
> s/FSupp2/228/720/2413757/ (addresses and rejects
> ex post facto claim)
>
> 4th Cir. Kleckler opinion, affirming lower court:
>
http://openjurist.org/348/f3d/69/united-states-v-k
> lecker
>
> I tend to agree with this remark in a commentary
> on the Canadian version of the law: "the Act’s
> highly subjective definition of “analogue”
> [is] a remarkably elastic and adaptable device.
> Highly useful from a regulatory
> standpoint—dangerously arbitrary when embedded
> in criminal law."
>
http://isomerdesign.com/Cdsa/definitions.php?struc
> ture=C
>
> But, as has been said, "it is what it is"
>
> Good luck.
Interesting read, thanks for the link. My hope is to have the charge dropped under the ex post facto guidelines.