3 ms·
Ok so there is no evidence that he intended to traffic anything though NE. The details about his phone doesn’t sound like something meaningful to report on in
by alex_young 3y ago
Ok so there is no evidence that he intended to traffic anything though NE. The details about his phone doesn’t sound like something meaningful to report on in this context to me.
- tptacek 3y agoSo, if you were on the jury, you'd acquit. If he's assured a jury consisting only of people like you, he's home free, and should call the sheriff's bluff and defend himself pro se to hold onto his cash.
- alex_young 3y agoTh jury for the trial for the crimes they never charged him with? Maybe they didn’t have evidence of a crime if they didn’t charge him. What is your reasoning?
- tptacek 3y agoThat they had substantial evidence of his intent to traffic (see the other comment on this thread that tracked down the NE Supreme Court case, which cited even more evidence), and probably would indeed have arrested him if he didn't fork over the cash. I feel like I've been pretty clear about this.
- alex_young 3y agoHe didn’t fork over his cash. They confiscated it under his objection. If they had evidence of a crime they would have charged it.
- tptacek 3y agoNo, that's not always true.