4 ms·
Being guilty of "Something" in the indictment is also a far cry from being guilty of the indictment. For instance, the difference between possession and distrib
by lumost 3y ago
Being guilty of "Something" in the indictment is also a far cry from being guilty of the indictment. For instance, the difference between possession and distribution.
- qingcharles 3y agoThis is one of the biggest ones. If you are caught with more than a certain amount (say 20 teeny tiny bags of crack) you are assumed to be distributing it even without any evidence of distribution. They say you would not have that much for personal use.
- smrq 3y agoI was on a jury last month for a case with this exact scenario. Dude had a lot of weed and the prosecution tried to use the quantity as the sole proof that he was distributing. Searched his phone, nothing, asked the neighbors about suspicious comings and goings, nothing, et cetera. Then they had some detective expert witness come in and say that in his opinion, the guy was absolutely a dealer based on that alone. The jury decided pretty much immediately that the prosecution hadn't proved shit. But a different jury... who knows?
- qingcharles 3y agoThis guy was a brave soul taking it to trial. Normally the jury believes expert cop witnesses. This is how they get the plea deals :( I know people who bulk buy large quantities of weed because they have to travel out of state to get it and they want to minimize the risks of being caught with it all in transit.
- int_19h 3y agoIn many jurisdictions this is explicitly written into law - a threshold past which assumption of distribution is automatic.