USA v. Phu et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. CR-24-146-R
)
MATTHEW ALAN STACY, 	)
CHANH IU PHU, 	)
CHONG IU PHU, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is the United States’ Motion in Limine Regarding Jury
Nullification and to Preclude Defendants’ Assertion of a State-Law or Mistake-of-Law
Defense [Doc. No. 206]. Mr. Stacy responded in opposition [Doc. No. 211]1 and the matter
is now at issue.2
Defendants stand charged by the grand jury in a multi-count Indictment with
marijuana related offenses. The government seeks a pretrial ruling precluding Defendants,
and specifically Mr. Stacy, from presenting evidence of their compliance with state medical
marijuana laws. The government contends that Defendants’ compliance with state law is
irrelevant to the federal charges and, additionally, any relevance is substantially
1 Defendants Chong Phu and Chanh Phu did not file a response.
2 “A motion in limine is a request for guidance by the court regarding an evidentiary
question, which the court may provide at its discretion to aid the parties in formulating trial
strategy.” Jones v. Stotts, 59 F.3d 143, 146 (10th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). “A court’s
in limine rulings are preliminary and are subject to change as the case unfolds or at its
discretion.” Godfrey v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. CIV-19-00329-JD, 2020 WL
1056306, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 4, 2020).
Case 5:24-cr-00146-R Document 303 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 4

2
outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. Mr. Stacy argues
that, in light of a federal appropriations rider precluding the DOJ from using its funds to
prosecute individuals for actions taken in compliance with state medical marijuana laws,
his compliance with state law is not only relevant, but is the crucial fact separating innocent
behavior from wrongful conduct.3
The Tenth Circuit considered a similar issue in United States v. Lin, No. 24-6130,
2025 WL 894934 (10th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025). The defendant in Lin faced federal drug charges
based on his collection and distribution of marijuana throughout Oklahoma. Id. The district
court granted the government’s motion to exclude evidence regarding the defendant’s
purported compliance with state medical marijuana laws, and the defendant appealed. Id.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, explaining that “all the government had to prove in this case
to establish sufficient mens rea was that [the defendant] knew the substance was marijuana;
his subjective beliefs about its legality, however well-founded, are completely irrelevant.”
Id.
Although Lin is unpublished, the Court finds its holding persuasive. Federal law
prohibits the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1). Contrary to Mr. Stacy’s position, the appropriations rider does not alter the
requirements for proving a violation of federal law or require proof that a defendant
knowingly operated outside of state medical marijuana laws. See United States v. Trevino,
3 In a prior motion, Mr. Stacy similarly argued that the Controlled Substances Act requires
proof that the defendant knowingly and intentionally violated state laws governing medical
marijuana. The Court rejected this argument and adopts that analysis here. United States v.
Phu, No. CR-24-146-R, 2025 WL 646987, at *5-7 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 27, 2025).
Case 5:24-cr-00146-R Document 303 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 4

3
7 F.4th 414, 427 (6th Cir. 2021) (“Thus, even if Section 538 validly denies funding for the
prosecution of certain conduct, that conduct remains criminal nonetheless.”); United States
v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1179 n.5 (9th Cir. 2016) (“To be clear, § 542 does not provide
immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses.”). As explained in Lin, 2025
WL 894934, at *2, Mr. Stacy’s compliance with state law or his subjective belief about the
legality of his conduct under state law is “completely irrelevant” to whether his conduct
violated federal law. See also United States v. Weng, No. 24-6266, 2025 WL 2701931, at
*5 (10th Cir. Sept. 23, 2025) (“In particular, Mr. Weng argues that the court erred by
holding that evidence of state-law compliance is not relevant to the mens rea element of a
federal drug conspiracy—a challenge we rejected in Lin.”); United States v. Haymon, No.
20-4438, 2021 WL 4495813, at *2 (4th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021) (defendant’s argument “that his
possession of marijuana was lawful under California law, and therefore he lacked the
specific intent to violate 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), is not a defense to a charge under the
Controlled Substances Act.”); United States v. Morales, 680 F. App'x 548, 551 (9th Cir.
2017) (evidence that marijuana is legal under state law “was not relevant to Morales’s
defense, as neither medical necessity nor mistake of law constitutes a defense to federal
drug charges”). Moreover, to the extent compliance with state law has any marginal
relevance, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues
and misleading the jury.
Accordingly, the government’s motion is granted and Defendants are precluded
from arguing or presenting evidence of compliance with state law as a general or
affirmative defense, or from inviting jury nullification based on evidence of compliance
Case 5:24-cr-00146-R Document 303 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 4

4
with state law.4 The ruling is subject to modification or reconsideration, particularly if the
government presents evidence during its case in chief of Defendants’ noncompliance with
state law.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 2026.
4 Mr. Stacy indicates that the government’s belief that he will improperly invite jury
nullification is not warranted in this case.
Case 5:24-cr-00146-R Document 303 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 4