I think that this is my problem with understanding the difference. In PA or FL, I will tell the cop or the prosecutor that some guy ran past me and handed me the bag of heroin, or I will remain silent.
In PA, if I remain silent, the jury will infer that since a cop saw me with heroin in my hand, I knew I had it in my hand. Guilty.
In FL, if I remain silent, no inference needed. Guilty.
In PA, if I explain that some guy handed me the heroin, the jury will examine all of the surrounding facts and circumstances and determine if I’m a lying drug addict, or if someone else really did hand it to me. Guilty or not depending on my story.
In FL, if I explain that some guy handed me the heroin, the jury will examine all of the surrounding facts and circumstances and determine if I’m a lying drug addict, or if someone else really did hand it to me. Guilty or not depending on my story.
Am I missing something, or is the difference in the .001% of cases where the jury deliberations come down to a coin flip as to who to believe, so that in FL I’m guilty, but in PA I’m not?
Good way to articulate the same thought I had. Whats the real practical difference? Someone said it upthread–I’m sure just about everyone says “it’s not my stuff, I don’t know how it got there” or some variation. In Florida or Pennsylvania it will be credible or not. Not seeing the real difference in practice. Maybe I’m missing it too.
It’s not just “credible or not.” You can have the same credibility and lose if it’s your burden instead of the state’s. Juries have a tough job in most cases, and changing the standard changes the result. Let’s use Kenm’s scenario. Ken buys a used car and gets pulled over. He tells the officer to go ahead and look around in the car if he wants, whereupon a controlled substance is discovered. Let’s say there’s no issues whether he possessed the drugs or whether they were drugs. The case is going to depend, in either state, on whether he knew.
Picture the whole spectrum of possible jury determinations from 100% sure he’s not guilty to complete coin flip to 100% sure he’s guilty. On the left you’ve got all kinds of doubt, and then as you move toward the right you’ve got less doubt and less doubt, until at some magical point you’ve got no reasonable doubt left. In Pennsylvania, Ken is arguing that the Commonwealth’s evidence hasn’t reached that point when it comes to knowledge. If they haven’t, Ken’s not guilty. That’s the measurement the jury’s tasked with.
In Florida, Ken’s already technically guilty of the offense - we’re past the magical point on “did he possess” and “was it drugs.” The question for the jury (I assume) is whether Ken has established by “preponderance of the evidence” that he didn’t know he had drugs in his car. Preponderance of the evidence means did he get past the 50/50 point on lack of knowledge. If he didn’t, he has no defense, and we already know he’s guilty otherwise.
Since the burden of proof is switched over to Ken, not only does he lose where there’s no credible evidence at all, he also loses all that space on the line between his “preponderance” and the state’s “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Technically, sure, it’s true that the question comes down to whether his story is credible or not, but all the points on the line between those two points represent cases where Florida gets a conviction and other states don’t, because while Ken can’t establish that he didn’t know, the state wouldn’t be able to prove that he did. I think it’s fair to say that juries end up thinking a defendant is probably guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at least some of the time. I’m not equipped to argue whether that’s only .001% of the cases.
That’s not an inference that a reasonable juror could or should make. It doesn’t follow.
However, if you see a guy with a lit joint in his hand, it is reasonable to assume that he knew he was in possession of marijuana.
On the standard, I think that we are in full agreement. It creates a rebuttable presumption that shifts more of the burden on the Defendant. Many laws do this.
It may be bad policy or a stupid law, but I can’t see how this is unconstitutional, a strict liability offense, or a “guilty until proven innocent” standard.
We might as well say that DUI laws are “guilty until proven innocent” because of a per se BAC standard.
Hasn’t Florida simply redefined this law to include an affirmative defense to possession? An affirmative defense is where the defendant says, basically, “Yeah, I did it, but here are reasons why it was okay for me to do it.”
Classic example is self-defense. Some bozo jumps me in a parking lot. I defend myself and in so doing, I put his ass in the hospital. In order to save his sorry ass, he claims that I assaulted him and I am arrested. When I go to court, I claim self-defense. I’m stating, in effect, “Yes, I did kick him in the gut and rupture his spleen. But I did so because he attacked me first.” I then have to prove that, and if I have witnesses or better yet, some security cam footage, then I’m off the hook.
It seems to me that this is the same sort of thing. I’d have to go into court and say “Yes, the drugs were found in my coat pocket, so technically I was in possession of them. But I don’t know how they got there, because I didn’t put them there.” Granted, unless I can come up with some footage of someone slipping it into my pocket, that’s gonna be a helluva lot harder to prove than my example of self-defense above.
When this thread started, I peered into my crystal ball and foresaw days upon days of people patiently explaining the difference between changing the elements of a crime with changing the burden of proof, and Whack-a-Mole standing proudly, defending the Good Ship Ignorance against all who would scuttle her.
I quickly determined that this time, I would avoid the frustrating fate of arguing with someone who crafts his own definitions for stuff and then refuses to acknowledge that the rest of the world defines these words differently.
I see that RNATB, who has taken up the mantle in my abdication, is doing an excellent and patient job of correctly explaining the situation, and that as predicted, WaM refuses to budge. The only difference is I got plenty of useful things done over the weekend and didn’t once stress over the fact that despite clear, calm, and well-written explanations, someone on the Internet was wrong.
Just out of vulgar curiosity, how did the prosecution prove I knew I had the drugs before this law was passed?
I have no opinion on whether or not this is a good law, but how did the police counter the nearly universal “I have no idea how those drugs got in the trunk” alibi?
In general, police need to show either constructive possession or actual possession of contraband. When the contraband is found in a trunk, as in your hypothetical situation, then the police must show that the accused exercised dominion and control over the substance, and that the defendant had knowledge about the character and presence of the contraband.
How to show that knowledge? Simple proximity is not enough. It’s one factor, but alone can never prove knowledge. Knowledge may be proved by evidence of acts, declarations or conduct of the accused from which an inference may be fairly drawn that he knew of the existence of contraband at the place where contraband was found. Evidence that the accused could see the material, evidence that the accused had touched the material, evidence that the accused had exclusive access to the area in question – all of these are probatve.i
It’s not quite as complicated as you make it sound. Juries can certainly infer from the facts presented that the defendant knowingly possessed the weed or whatever. However, juries may not make inferences that disregard unrebutted testimony - or at least can’t expect their verdicts to stand up on appeal (or on a motion for JNOV).
So, if you claim the weed was put there by somebody else, and the state doesn’t bother to put on any proof to the contrary, you will probably go free. That proof doesn’t have to be proof, in and of itself, that you did put the weed there. It just has to rebut your claim sufficiently for the jury to disregard it*, so they can go back to drawing inferences.
I leave it to Bricker to explain how much of a difference this makes in practice.
Not nearly as bad as the Florida situation, but not good either.
Women (likely sex workers) threatened with jail if they carry more than a couple of condoms. So the health department passes them out and the police confiscate them as evidence.
There is a proposed law in NYS to ban condoms as evidence of prostitution.