Why Max’s Case Matters
This Isn’t Justice. This Is Punishment Without a Conviction
Max Matters.
David Max Leidermann has been federally indicted in the District of Nebraska on cannabis distribution and money-laundering related counts and has been detained pending trial. His case matters far beyond one person. It raises fundamental questions about due process, venue fairness, prosecutorial discretion, and the continuing misalignment between public opinion and criminal enforcement policy. These are not abstract legal points, they are the practical realities shaping Max’s life and liberty right now.
Public opinion has moved on cannabis: the law is out of step with voters
Public support for legal access to cannabis, whether medical or recreational, is now the position of a clear majority of Americans. Recent national surveys show overwhelming support for legalizing marijuana in some form and continuing strong majorities in favor of reform.
This gap between public sentiment and aggressive criminal enforcement matters because even as cannabis becomes normalized, commercialized, and widely accepted, federal law still classifies it as a Schedule I substance with extreme penalties.
Max’s case highlights the harsh reality that even if you live in a place like California, where cannabis is legal and commonplace, arcane federal laws can still command a life sentence. There is a massive disconnect between how Americans view cannabis and the level of enforcement still being carried out in places such as Nebraska.
Jurors do not learn sentencing consequences. That creates a blind spot in verdict decisions
Most U.S. jurisdictions follow a rule of “jury ignorance.” Jurors are instructed on law and facts but are not told the likely sentence a defendant faces if convicted. The rationale is to keep juries focused on guilt versus innocence rather than punishment.
But when statutory penalties are extraordinarily harsh and jurors cannot assess the consequences of a guilty verdict, the risk of a disproportionate outcome increases dramatically. In Max’s case, the stakes are severe: the statutory penalties described in the federal indictment are substantial, and jurors deciding guilt will be unaware that a guilty verdict could mean a life sentence for a non-violent, victimless offense.
Max is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Two and a half years detained without trial is not just a delay; it is a fundamental breakdown of the presumption of innocence.
Max has been denied bail, denied the ability to prepare for trial from a position of liberty, and denied any family visitation for over two and a half years. He has effectively endured punishment before conviction, a punishment far more severe than many convicted defendants in similar cases ever face.
This is a level of pretrial treatment typically reserved for violent offenders or individuals posing an extreme danger to the public, not a man accused of a non-violent cannabis offense.
His continued detention does not match the nature of the allegations. It represents a profound imbalance between the government's power and the rights of an unconvicted person. Max is being punished far beyond his alleged conduct, and long before a jury has had the chance to hear the facts of his case.
When a defendant has already lost years of freedom without a conviction, the presumption of innocence becomes theoretical rather than real.
Presidential clemency is a real and appropriate pathway for Max’s case
Because Max is charged in federal court, a presidential pardon or commutation is a constitutionally available remedy. The President has plenary authority to grant clemency under Article II.
There are compelling equities that merit executive relief. Max should not face the possibility of life in prison over cannabis, especially when he has already endured years of pretrial punishment for an alleged non-violent offense. Clemency exists precisely for cases where the law is out of step with fairness, proportionality, and evolving national standards.