A San Francisco jury has acquitted a 67-year-old man arrested outside a Phish concert on multiple felony drug counts, handing him a clean sweep in a case that tossed the city’s drug-policy choices back into the spotlight. The prosecution centered on a familiar local character, a longtime street vendor sometimes known as the city’s “shroom guy,” and turned into a test of how aggressively San Francisco should police psychedelics at big public shows. The verdict is now fueling arguments over what “low‑priority” enforcement actually looks like under city policy and which cases prosecutors should be pursuing in court.
Jurors found Fred McChesney, 67, not guilty after an undercover buy‑bust outside the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, where prosecutors said an officer bought $40 worth of MDMA and officers later seized mushrooms, two additional pills, 15 tabs of LSD and some Tylenol. Defense lawyers told the court the operation involved roughly 20 officers and a drone, and the District Attorney’s office responded with multiple felony charges for possession with intent to sell, charges the jury ultimately rejected, as reported by 48 Hills.
City Policy vs. Enforcement
In September 2022, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution urging that entheogenic plants and fungi be “amongst the lowest law enforcement priority” and that city resources not be used for related investigations. The resolution put into writing a local stance that plant‑based psychedelics should be deprioritized by police, while still leaving state and federal criminal laws unchanged, as per the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
The MDMA Tangle
Complicating the case is a quirk in the law: MDMA is not explicitly listed by name in California’s controlled‑substance schedules, so when prosecutors bring MDMA‑related charges they often have to prove that an unlisted compound is either a controlled substance or a close “analog.” The California Supreme Court has held that juries cannot simply assume a chemical is controlled based on its name, which raises the evidentiary bar when prosecutors rely on an analog theory. California Supreme Court decision.
At Trial: Defense and Verdict
During the trial, defense witnesses argued that MDMA’s chemistry and clinical effects are sharply different from methamphetamine, and a psychiatrist from San Francisco General testified that clinicians there had not seen MDMA‑related psychosis in the way prosecutors described. The defense team also highlighted McChesney’s lack of a prior criminal record and his medical issues, and after deliberation the twelve‑member jury acquitted him of the felony counts. 48 Hills reported the testimony and the outcome from inside the courtroom.
Politics and Optics
The prosecution unfolded while San Francisco was heavily promoting its own psychedelic‑tinged cultural moments, including Dead & Company shows and a short‑lived Muni campaign that wrapped some buses and trains in tie‑dye designs. Critics argue that kind of marketing makes aggressive enforcement against small psychedelic sales look out of step with the city’s broader messaging. Coverage of those promotions highlighted how awkward it can appear to prosecute low‑level psychedelic activity while the city publicly leans into nostalgia and related cultural events. SFist.
What to Watch Next
The verdict leaves an open question of whether prosecutors will move away from filing felony charges tied to festival‑style buy‑busts or instead double down on enforcement in hopes of deterring larger dealers. Advocates for decriminalization argue the case shows why San Francisco needs clearer local guidelines that reconcile the Board’s 2022 resolution with on‑the‑ground policing, while prosecutors say they still need tools to go after serious sellers in the name of public safety. For now, the trial has thrown the District Attorney’s charging decisions, SFPD tactics and City Hall messaging into sharp relief as San Francisco heads into another season of large concerts and public events.
