October Winner

I might have to make this a monthly feature.

October's winner for best defense I had never heard before:

Yeah, I had crack in my pocket. And a crack pipe. But those were my brother's pants.

Eh. I guess we could argue "unknowing" possession. But I feel like maybe there would be some presumption that he should check the pockets of the pants he was wearing for crack. (Kind of like if you're driving a car, it's assumed you checked all of the compartments.) And, I feel like it'd be one thing if it was a tiny bag of crack... but a pipe too? You'd have to feel that.

So, no, I wasn't buying it.

Also, I feel like it'd be tough to sell this defense considering this client had been convicted of drug possession five times in the past year alone.

Although, maybe that could be the defense. "Your honor, had my client known he had crack and a pipe in his pocket, surely he would have smoked it. But, instead, he didn't know... because those were his brother's pants."

Nah, I didn't think so either.

(See the September champ here.)

4 comments:

  1. I love this feature...You should SOOO adopt it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Heh.

    I had one where the client said:
    "Your Honor, I didn't know that I did wrong; If smoking pot is wrong, then yes I smoked pot and I was wrong, but that's it"

    and a few minutes later:
    "well your Honor, I knew that if the cops found the coke, I'd be in trouble with you, so I was just trying to hide it in the car. It wasn't mine, but I didn't want to get in trouble with you."

    Brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Would a reasonable person check his pants pocket for crack? Hum I wonder...

    ReplyDelete
  4. You haven't heard "not my pants" before? I've tried one of those cases, and won it.

    I also tried a Some Black Guy must've framed me by sticking meth in my pocket case. Won it, too.

    Of course, I had one significant advantage in trying those cases. I was the prosecutor.

    ReplyDelete