# Most unbelievable successful defense **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 16, 2014, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005 "2014-01-16T21:50:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/21 "2014-01-17T07:12:29Z")
> [@Gary\_T](#): > > I don’t get your point here. It seems perfectly logical and straightforward to me that December 31 is still within the calendar year. Why would they not accept testing done on that date? That is baffling, unless they are talking about testing done on [January 0](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_0) in the following year. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/22 "2014-01-17T08:11:29Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I was on a jury many years ago that still has me shaking my head. A guy was arrested for selling crack cocaine in the park. He had been observed for several days making transactions before he was arrested. Upon arrest he was found to have several “rocks” in his pocket. He claimed that he thought they were just wax and he was just ripping people off, he said he didn’t know it was real cocaine. Prosecution : “Oh ? Fine, we’ll get you for fraud and false advertising then. Thanks for the confession, dude !” 😃 ETA : joke aside, there’s the pressing concern of where he found the “wax”, isn’t there ? Even if the dumb jury buys the “I didn’t know it was real crank !” shtick, rocks don’t grow on trees… ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/23 "2014-01-17T08:59:26Z")
You mean you can rip buyers off for several days and no comes back for a refund? The market for cocaine must as big as that of a shopping mall. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/24 "2014-01-17T10:02:51Z")
I was defending a (female) drug carrier. Overwhelming evidence. Arrested at a bus stop, 2 people ready to testify that she had been shifty, verbally uncooperative with the police etc. Narcotics recovered from her person. During XX I asked the Investigating officer: _where was the narcotic found on her person_ IO: _Bra, stockings_ (:eek:) Me: _Did you search her and recover the narcotics_? (IO was male) IO: _No a female constable Soandso did_ Me: after a few seconds of examining papers. _Soandso is not on the list of witnesses_ IO: checking lists _errr, no she is not_ **death glares at his junior** Trial stopped, acquittal ordered. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![epbrown01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@epbrown01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epbrown01)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/25 "2014-01-17T11:56:26Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > You mean you can rip buyers off for several days and no comes back for a refund? The market for cocaine must as big as that of a shopping mall. Also, he was observed for several days without a repeat customer? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/26 "2014-01-17T14:55:14Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > I was defending a (female) drug carrier. Overwhelming evidence. Arrested at a bus stop, 2 people ready to testify that she had been shifty, verbally uncooperative with the police etc. Narcotics recovered from her person. > > During XX I asked the Investigating officer: _where was the narcotic found on her person_ > > IO: _Bra, stockings_ (:eek:) > > Me: _Did you search her and recover the narcotics_? (IO was male) > > IO: _No a female constable Soandso did_ > > Me: after a few seconds of examining papers. _Soandso is not on the list of witnesses_ > > IO: checking lists _errr, no she is not_ **death glares at his junior** > Trial stopped, acquittal ordered. 😃 Please explain for those of us who learned everything about law from TV. The officer who actually found the crack wasn’t on the list of witnesses so that meant Instant Acquittal. Why? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/27 "2014-01-17T15:04:31Z")
> [@Napier](#): > > There was some kind of discussion of a contract with Lear for the development of one of their jets which required flight testing to be completed by the end of a certain calendar year, and they accepted testing done on “December 31”. That was the LearFan, which was to have been produced in Northern Ireland but had to be airborne by the end of 1980 to qualify for a UK subsidy. The official date of the first test, with smirks all around, was December 32, 1980, not 1/1/81. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/28 "2014-01-17T15:09:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Not a successful defense but a creative one. > > Back around 1980 a state’s entire prison system was being charged with systemic violations of the Eighth Amendment. And the evidence against them was pretty overwhelming and there was no way they could refute the facts. > > So they swung for the fences and claimed that the fact that the violations were systemic was their defense. They argued the Constitution prohibited punishment that was cruel _and_ unusual. And the mountain of evidence demonstrated that while they might be enacting punishment which was cruel, they were doing it in so widespread a manner it didn’t qualify as unusual. > > The judge did not buy this argument. This ought to be found under the dictionary definition of “Chutzpah”. 😃 Alongside the kid who murdered both his parents and asked the court for leniency on the basis he was an orphan. ---
**Author:** ![Dorjan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dorjan/32/12440_2.png) [@Dorjan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorjan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/29 "2014-01-17T15:45:20Z")
I thought there were federal and state laws that make the sale or attempted sale of fake drugs just as illegal as real ones? Or at the very least, convicted of criminal fraud. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/30 "2014-01-17T16:03:27Z")
> [@Dorjan](#): > > I thought there were federal and state laws that make the sale or attempted sale of fake drugs just as illegal as real ones? Or at the very least, convicted of criminal fraud. The word you’re looking for is “intent”. If the court can establish that the drug buyer really was expecting to purchase genuine cocaine, that’s still a crime even if the bag contains only talcum powder. This is also the technique used by Dateline’s _To Catch a Predator_ to nab horny pedophiles even though the people who make the offer are always over 18. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/31 "2014-01-17T16:34:01Z")
> [@Yorikke](#): > > [Twinkie Defense](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense) > > Nothing comes close, off the top of my head. Did you actually read the link you provided? Do you really think the actual case was ridiculous? Because IMHO, the actual argument made was completely reasonable. An insanity defense was completely legal and common enough to be believable. In making that defense, pointing out that the defendent, in the days immediately before the crime, was acting very unusually (for them) is hardly unbelievable. A dramatic change in eating habits, for someone with a known dedication to a particular dietary regime, as one part of that is maybe not the strongest evidence of mental upset all by itself, but still enough that a defense team should bring it up if they have other evidence of mental upset. Note that the defense made no attempt to (and weren’t required to) establish why or how the mental disturbance came about. The diety change was merely evidence that he was not himself, NOT presented as causing mental upset. What’s unbelievable about any of this? [Sorry for the rant, but we are fighting ignorance right?] ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/32 "2014-01-17T16:43:24Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > Did you actually read the link you provided? Do you really think the actual case was ridiculous? > Because IMHO, the actual argument made was completely reasonable. > > An insanity defense was completely legal and common enough to be believable. In making that defense, pointing out that the defendent, in the days immediately before the crime, was acting very unusually (for them) is hardly unbelievable. A dramatic change in eating habits, for someone with a known dedication to a particular dietary regime, as one part of that is maybe not the strongest evidence of mental upset all by itself, but still enough that a defense team should bring it up if they have other evidence of mental upset. > > Note that the defense made no attempt to (and weren’t required to) establish why or how the mental disturbance came about. The diety change was merely evidence that he was not himself, NOT presented as causing mental upset. > > What’s unbelievable about any of this? > > [Sorry for the rant, but we are fighting ignorance right?] The Twinkie Defense is one of the clearest examples for me of the general public’s (even the educated public’s) inability to understand simple legal concepts, especially when they are unsatisfied with the result of a case. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/33 "2014-01-17T18:19:30Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Please explain for those of us who learned everything about law from TV. The officer who actually found the crack wasn’t on the list of witnesses so that meant Instant Acquittal. Why? Obviously **AK84** is a better source of information, since it was his trial, but while I’m a little surprised at the remedy being instant acquittal, I can offer some insight. The Sixth Amendment guarantees every criminal defendant the right to confront his (or her) accuser. In this case, the officer on the stand couldn’t testify that the accused had drugs in her bra, since he didn’t see that himself. The female constable told him of this fact. So this is _hearsay_ – an out-of-court statement, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. This question and answer should be stricken from the record – and because the female constable was not going to testify, the prosecution had no way of getting the necessary evidence into the record, so that no reasonable jury could convict the accused as a matter of law. I don’t know why the court decided that the prosecution could not cure this defect by calling the female constable – perhaps the defense made the argument that because they had relied on the extant witness list, allowing the extra witness to be called represented a prejudice to the accused. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/34 "2014-01-17T18:58:38Z")
Thanks, Bricker. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005/35 "2014-01-17T19:14:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Obviously **AK84** is a better source of information, since it was his trial, but while I’m a little surprised at the remedy being instant acquittal, I can offer some insight. > > The Sixth Amendment guarantees every criminal defendant the right to confront his (or her) accuser. In this case, the officer on the stand couldn’t testify that the accused had drugs in her bra, since he didn’t see that himself. The female constable told him of this fact. So this is _hearsay_ – an out-of-court statement, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. This question and answer should be stricken from the record – and because the female constable was not going to testify, the prosecution had no way of getting the necessary evidence into the record, so that no reasonable jury could convict the accused as a matter of law. > > I don’t know why the court decided that the prosecution could not cure this defect by calling the female constable – perhaps the defense made the argument that because they had relied on the extant witness list, allowing the extra witness to be called represented a prejudice to the accused. Spot on, except for the fact that we have no sixth amendment in jurisdiction, although we do have the equivalent of a confrontation clause. Courts here tend to frown upon belated introduction of inculpatory evidence. I think they could have allowed the evidence in because this was a technical error, but I think the acquittal was ordered since they knew that a conviction would probably result in an appeal and the High Court might have reversed in fair trial issues.Plus, I am pretty sure that IO has been careful since then. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unbelievable-successful-defense/679005.md?page=1)