The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Medina, 892 F.2d 84 (9th Cir. 1989):
2 Medina's claim that United States v. Bramble, 641 F.2d 681, 682-83 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1072, 103 S.Ct. 493, 74 L.Ed2d 635 (1982), precludes the use of a marijuana dealing prior in a cocaine-dealing case is just plain wrong. Bramble only distinguished marijuana possession from cocaine dealing. In fact, Bramble suggests that if the prior activity of the defendant in that case had shown that he was a dealer, the result would have been different.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.