Last night, after work, instead of going home and crawling into my warm and comfy bed, I went to the jail to see one of my clients.
And thank god I did.
Because, as it turns out, I didn't know a single fucking thing about criminal law until I met with him.
I was clueless.
You've heard of a jailhouse lawyer? Well, apparently one week in jail has made this guy some kind of jailhouse law professor.
Yes, that's right.
And I learned such important tidbits as this one:
"Possession with intent to sell? I can beat that! I can beat that! I can beat that! I can beat that! You don't understand, I can beat that."
"Why don't you tell me how you think you can beat that?"
"Well, it was cut. I cut it. I cut it. I cut it. I cut it. I cut it. (Obviously, he has a problem with repeating himself. And spitting when he talks, which is hard to portray to you through a blog.) Therefore, they cannot prove purity. And it is an imperative element that they prove purity."
"What kind of purity do you think they have to prove?"
(See, I'm using the reverse-socratic method. He's the law professor, but I'm asking the questions. Gee, I'm glad I spent my evening on this, instead of eating dinner. )
"Obviously, they have to prove 100%. 100%. 100%. 100%. The statute doesn't call it 'Possession of cocaine and baking soda,' the statute is called 'Possession of cocaine.' That means nothing more. That means nothing more. That means nothing more. If I was charged with intent to distribute cocaine and baking soda, then maybe they'd get me."
It's funny, because most of my clients attack the "intent to distribute" part of the statute.
"But, do you think that maybe the fact that it's cut with baking soda only goes to show the intent to distribute? People don't cut their own cocaine that they're keeping for personal use."
"You don't know the law. You don't know the law. You don't know the law. You haven't read the law. I have. I have. I have. It's not a crime to have baking soda."