program the prosecutor Robert Lund justified his decision to charge Angelos with a felony carrying a minimum sentence of 55 years for his first marijuana offense on the following grounds: Weldon Angelos was suspected of gang involvement. Weldon Angelos had purchased a Lexus car for $30,000. Weldon Angelos had not accepted a 15-year plea bargain. Weldon Angelos' girlfriend's house held a duffel bag with "cannabis shakings", and the duffel bag would be large enough for two people to crawl into. The same prosecutor later worked to secure Weldon's release from prison. 924(c) stacking The case is an example of what is technically known as 924(c) stacking. In many such cases the jury decides a gun may have been present beyond an acceptable probability of reasonable doubt appropriate for a commensurate sentence, rather than a sentence commensurate with a violent crime. For example, in a similar case involving defendant Michael Prikakis, Prikakis like Angelos was induced by a paid informant to make three drug sales. It was asserted that a gun was present, this was denied by Prikakis, and the jury decided a gun was present beyond reasonable doubt. It is known in that case that the judge's instructions to the jury did not apprise them to use a standard of reasonable doubt appropriate for a stacked sentence. The judge Vinson later wrote that the jury would have been shocked to learn of the stacked sentence: "I think they would rise up in indignation, as anybody else would, if they know about how this law is being applied and construed in circumstances such as this, which is essentially one underlying offense." Judge Vinson also noted that in such cases the prosecutor can choose the length of the sentence by choosing what number of controlled buys to solicit prior to the arrest of the defendant. Articles also note that prosecutors can solicit controlled buys from an essentially innocent defendant known to carry a gun, thereby inducing a previously innocent person to commit transactions leading to life imprisonment. Proponents argue that 924(c) stacking effectively punishes recidivist offenders and removes them from society. On the other hand, J. Shulhofer wrote that although 924(c) stacking was intended to be applied to repeat offenders, in practise prosecutors actually apply it "on first offenders in borderline situations who may have plausible defenses and are more likely to insist upon trial." Release On 31 May 2016, after serving