The roadside test established probable cause. The lab test is to prove at trial.
Probably THC vape oil.
When someone represents himself, the judge is required to advise them at least somewhat during the trial. In this case, the judge could have decided, from the arguments that the kid has made so far, that he doesn’t want to go through the work and frustration that the trial would undoubtedly become. If he has the option of saying, effectively, I’m not gonna put myself through that, then I don’t blame him for taking it. It sounds like the kid just doesn’t listen.
Also, if the kid’s trying to cheap out on getting the lab test done on his dime, he may live to regret that. Different tests check for different things with different levels of sensitivity. It’s possible that the cops will test for whether the oil is derived from marijuana and get a positive. If the kid’s defense is that it has no THC, then the test needs to be for THC. The cops aren’t going to do him that favor, especially if they can get a conviction without it, double especially if the THC test is more expensive.
Personally, I’d want to pay for my own test even if I knew it was an exact duplicate, just to keep everyone honest.
Why would anyone ‘vape’ that oil. If it doesn’t have THC, what’s the point. Does it produce a ‘high’. Why would anyone take a chance and have it on their person, if it can test positive. Seems like foolish exercise, at best.
The judge doesn’t know that the kid’s story is that it wasn’t pot. The judge just wants to know what the plea is, and whether the defendant understands the implications of the plea.
If the defendant says he wants to represent himself, the judge has to hold a “Faretta colloquy,” which basically means he has to question the defendant until he’s satisfied that the waiver of counsel was made knowingly.
The questions are things like, “can you read and write” and “did you graduate high school?”, not things like “what’s the legal theory you plan to establish at trial?”
The fact that the defendant is probably going to lose is not dispositive of the Faretta analysis; all that matters is whether the waiver is knowing. There was an interesting Faretta-related case released just today by the appellate court that handles all of my cases, which explains the colloquy process in more detail.
Disclaimer: I don’t use cannabis and have no inclination to do so, nor do I recommend its use. I’m not an authority. I live in a state where cannabis is legal–at the state level. M
CBD is rumored to relieve inflammation and ease other health issues. I’ve been told there is always a trace of THC in cannabis-only products. I don’t know if the roadside test can detect traces. If so, that could possibly explain the positive result.
According to this article, In some states, CBD-only is legal–to a certain extent and under certain conditions. So it’s possible The Kid thinks the oil is legal, and it might BE legal in your state, but it might be so a) only for certain conditions b) only if it’s in the original container and c) only when it’s NOT being transported. The old Rx bottle was a bad move, IMHO.
My guess is The Kid knew some of this, and that’s why he’s not saying what it is. Is he over 21?
Apparently he has just aged up to adulthood the OP said. I am willing to bet he has no degenerative joint disease or other condition requiring meds. He is trying to bullshit his way out of this IMO, but at least he has hired an Attorney.
Well…they do say that a person who acts as his own council in court has a fool as both an attorney and a client.
i can’t even claim to know what dynamic was or wasn’t going on in his case.
in general,
it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that a judge was acting powerful. they are.
it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if a judge behaved or forced procedure in some way that didn’t follow procedures exactly as they’re supposed to, they’re human and capable of error (be it intentionally or unintentionally).
*i used the word certainly in that example because of the research i did today regarding withholding court appointed counsel on the basis of someone having bonded out of jail (and therefore the court assuming that they can afford an attorney). loach’s post prompted me to do that research and he was correct (of course). it’s not as cut & dry as since A happened you can’t get B. judges steamroll people all the time on that (my knowledge tells me that, a Google search can confirm that for anyone who doesn’t believe it). it would be incredibly naïve to think that this is the only situation where someone in charge of interpreting &/or enforcing laws were to take advantage of another’s unfamiliarity with their rights or how things should be handled.
what also wouldn’t surprise me is this kid coming off in court like he was a smug, smart ass punk that makes most adults want to strangle him occasionally. he acts that way normally, I’m not sure how well he can turn that off if needed. my guess is not very well. I’m not saying behaving in some way should affect process or procedure, I’m saying it wouldn’t surprise me if it did.
commenting on the higher charge, plead out to a lessor charge thing. that’s how the system works basically. very few cases ever really go to trial. the time, nor the resources exist for a lot of trials.
there’s been a lot of mention of this kid representing himself ‘at trial’. we all know that wouldn’t go well. the deal is, cases rarely go to trial. that was the last thing on his mind. he was told that the state wouldn’t proceed with lab testing, whatever it was, until a plea was entered.
he thought well, i can pay someone $1500 to say not guilty for me, or i can say it myself. to him it was a no brainer - here’s my plea. now you can proceed with the test.
i have a hard time saying that’s flawed logic, especially if
a. you don’t have the money &
b. this kid knows what we don’t. whatever was in that container might not be anything illegal at all. that would mean $1500 for nothing.
I’m pretty sure the lab test is on the states dime. he said he begged the cop to test it again, in front of him this time, the day of the arrest. he accused the cop of “bringing up some dusty field kit test from his (the officers) own stash from two months ago”. probably didn’t go over too well, but it didn’t change the outcome that night.
if what he’s saying is true, to me it does seem weird the test wasn’t done in full view of everyone. not sure what procedure is on that though.
this. this right here is what i started the thread wondering about. thank you.
in my state, any form of cannabis anything is illegal.
i don’t use it, but i disagree with it being illegal for recreational use. further, i think it’s criminal on the states part to withhold it’s use from those that truly can benefit from it medically.
19 i believe
I wondered because I thought if perhaps your state allowed CBD but not THC, a person might have to be 21 to own the CBD. That’s a moot point, I guess.
It’s good that the kid is aware he has rights and that he has to advocate for himself. What he has yet to learn is that being courteous and calm generally works better with other humans than belligerence. Some kids need to learn everything the hard way. Sounds like he’s one of them. Best of luck to him.
Because I’m saying it’s probably THC oil not CBD. THC vape oil has THC. CBD oil would most likely be in packaging that says CBD oil. There are videos on youtube showing you how to turn pot into THC oil to vape. That is what I would expect to be in an unmarked bottle. Speculation of course.
what you’d posted and also information from your linked content, which i just read last night, indicate to me that he was in fact denied a civil (i think that’s what it would be) right, or at least denied the process to determine his fitness to defend himself which would then end up with a determination of such.
while i have no desire to intervene in his matter by sharing that info with him (his mom, my friend, would kill me if i did), i can’t say i appreciate a blatant disregard for mine, yours or anyone’s rights.
how often would you estimate this, or similar (not advising someone of, honoring, defending their rights) happens in a court of law?
am i correct in thinking that a judge shouldn’t have to have procedure pointed out to them?
what about when someone does so & mentions their rights & gets shut down with fear of imprisonment if they don’t comply in allowing their rights to be trampled on?
what is a judge guilty of that behaves in this way?
who polices that?
who does someone complain to without fear of retribution in some way? ACLU maybe?
I’ve always been of the opinion that those who serve the public legally (cops & judges, not lawyers) should be held to a higher standard regarding following the law. not only is that not ever the case that I’m aware of, it normally seems to be the polar opposite with no obvious means at the disposal to the average person to do much about it 95% of the time.
i thought i would post this that i found on the wiki page on pro se litigation in case anyone else might find it as unusual a statistic as i did.
“After conducting an empirical study of pro se felony defendants, I conclude that these defendants are not necessarily either ill-served by the decision to represent themselves or mentally ill….In state court, pro se defendants charged with felonies fared as well as, and arguably significantly better than, their represented counterparts…of the 234 pro se defendants for whom an outcome was provided, just under 50 percent of them were convicted on any charge….for represented state court defendants, by contrast, a total of 75 percent were convicted of some charge…. Only 26 percent of the pro se defendants ended up with felony convictions, while 63 percent of their represented counterparts were convicted of felonies…in federal court…the acquittal rate for pro se defendants is virtually identical to the acquittal rate for represented defendants.”[39]
now that’s a very, very small sample size, no doubt. i guess I’m just really surprised that any sample size. . … from anywhere . . …at any time . …would’ve netted those results.
makes one wonder what all forces were at play there.
quick update for anyone interested in knowing -
so her son got his car back from the body shop, brought it by for me to look at a clutch problem this afternoon. while he was at the house i asked him how his court deal was going & again about what the heck was in the bottle.
(understand I’m merely passing on what I was told. i believe him, you can decide for yourself, ultimately what is decided in court for him is what matters)
so, his mom was the first one to talk to me about this. she said “unknown” substance in pill bottle because that’s what he told her & said he’d told the cop. he didn’t stray from that version when they came by the other day.
today, after my triple swearing (his conditions, i obliged) not to tell his mom, he told me what was in the bottle. he said it was some “high dollar” lubricant he’d found a bottle in his mom’s nightstand. he put quite a few pumps in the pill bottle, had it in his car, planned to sample it later with his girlfriend.
when the cop found it, he said he was very clear about what it was to the cop. he said after it was tested & it was said to be illegal, “i told him 100x it wasn’t. . … he said i was lying. . … wanted me to know they were onto me. . …i just needed to tell him where i get my stuff” said he’d asked for it to be tested in front of him repeatedly & they’d said they didn’t need to.
he’s still pissed about having to hire the attorney. if what he says is true actually is, i think most people would feel the same way.
his attorney has entered a plea for him & the states lab sent the stuff out to wherever it goes… he said if they dispute the results they get back they can have a lab of his & his lawyers choosing have their own test done.
it sounded like it would be after Christmas before he goes back to court.
mr horsepower, I don’t want to derail the discussion, but is there a reason you do not use an uppercase letter at the beginning of a sentence, and for words like “I”? (I would have sent you a PM, but you have that feature turned off.)
i use my phone* typically to browse the internet. I’ve got auto capitalization and auto correct turned off on my phone as it seems to have a mind of it’s own otherwise. some words are in the/ it’s dictionary capitalized or there wouldn’t be any capitals in it.
*stock android phones would be a nightmare doing this. my rooted android with a custom rom, all the bloatware removed, a well set up browser, ad blocking & a good firewall make my phone behave 99% like my desktop. the difference after doing these things takes a phone from near unusable, imo, to truly enjoyable.
I wouldn’t put a great deal of stock into the results of the study (which you can read here). Law review articles, unlike other academic papers, aren’t peer-reviewed - so any statistical analysis (in particular) on which they rely should be taken with a grain of salt. As far as I can tell, Hashimoto’s findings were not confirmed by any other study.
Even assuming the numbers are accurate, there are as you guessed many factors which make them less surprising, at least in the criminal context.
The most obvious explanation is a huge sample bias. Pro se defendants are self-selecting to a high degree; those who know they are innocent are more likely to feel they don’t need an attorney, because the facts will exonerate them. The ones who know they’re guilty know they need a lawyer.
In civil actions, there is a countervailing force, in that attorneys are less likely to take cases when the facts do not support a potential client’s position, but that force does not apply to anything like the same degree in criminal cases since most criminal defendants are factually guilty.
Any attorney who’s dealt with a pro se litigant will tell you that the litigant was at best a poor advocate, and at worst rambled incoherently. On the other hand, jailhouse lawyers mostly learn the law the same way lawyers do - by reading cases - so it’s not all that surprising if some of them are quite good at it.
-RNATB, non-criminal lawyer.