Dear people who say, "There is so much evidence! Why hasn't XX been indicted?"
Explaining how the rules of evidence work and that these cases are more complicated than they appear doesn't do much.
Twitter insists. But we SEE the evidence!
So how about if I tell a story?
1/
Explaining how the rules of evidence work and that these cases are more complicated than they appear doesn't do much.
Twitter insists. But we SEE the evidence!
So how about if I tell a story?
1/
This is the story of a young (and arrogant) federal prosecutor who was absolutely sure he had a case against my client.
Indeed, the case looked airtight.
My client was caught red-handed with illegal drugs. Plus she confessed.
You can't do better than that, right?
2/
Indeed, the case looked airtight.
My client was caught red-handed with illegal drugs. Plus she confessed.
You can't do better than that, right?
2/
Turns out that the prosecutor didn’t get all the facts.
The facts: My client was sleeping in the backseat of a truck. In the back were illegal drugs.
The truck driver was her boyfriend. He was also married (but obviously not to her.)
3/
The facts: My client was sleeping in the backseat of a truck. In the back were illegal drugs.
The truck driver was her boyfriend. He was also married (but obviously not to her.)
3/
So there she was, sleeping in the back of the truck (with drugs in the truck) when the truck driver drove onto an air force base right past the sign that said, “All vehicles passing this point are subject to search.”
Yes, he did that . . . (defense lawyer = 🤦♀️)
4/
Yes, he did that . . . (defense lawyer = 🤦♀️)
4/
The purpose of the sign was obvious: If you drive past the sign, you consent to a search.
If you consent, the search is legal under the Fourth Amendment.
I don’t know why he drove past that sign under the circumstances.
Maybe he wasn’t the best reader.
5/
If you consent, the search is legal under the Fourth Amendment.
I don’t know why he drove past that sign under the circumstances.
Maybe he wasn’t the best reader.
5/
As the officers were searching the truck, my client woke up.
Her boyfriend took her aside and said, “You gotta say the drugs are yours. If I get charged, I’ll lose my job.” (He also had that matter of a wife.)
So my client did it. She confessed and said the drugs were hers.
6/
Her boyfriend took her aside and said, “You gotta say the drugs are yours. If I get charged, I’ll lose my job.” (He also had that matter of a wife.)
So my client did it. She confessed and said the drugs were hers.
6/
She was charged with a federal crime because she possessed the illegal substance on federal property.
First, I tried to talk the prosecutor out of insisting on jail time, which would have totally ruined her. She would have lost her job as a laundress. Etc. Etc.
7/
First, I tried to talk the prosecutor out of insisting on jail time, which would have totally ruined her. She would have lost her job as a laundress. Etc. Etc.
7/
He wouldn't budge.
Me = 🤔
Then= 💡
I filed a motion arguing that the search was illegal as to her because a sleeping person can’t consent to a search.
8/
Me = 🤔
Then= 💡
I filed a motion arguing that the search was illegal as to her because a sleeping person can’t consent to a search.
8/
The prosecutor argued that she was awake while they were searching.
She testified that she was asleep when the truck drove drove onto the base.
Guess what? The judge agreed with me. The judge turned to the prosecutor and said . . .
9/
She testified that she was asleep when the truck drove drove onto the base.
Guess what? The judge agreed with me. The judge turned to the prosecutor and said . . .
9/
“I don’t see how someone can come up out of sleep and give consent.”
(At that moment, the prosecutor was not happy.)
Winning on my motion meant that the evidence was excluded under the exclusionary rule. (Evidence obtained in an illegal search can't be used in court.)
10/
(At that moment, the prosecutor was not happy.)
Winning on my motion meant that the evidence was excluded under the exclusionary rule. (Evidence obtained in an illegal search can't be used in court.)
10/
Federal prosecutors have a 96% conviction rate.
One reason it's so high: when they see they're going to lose, all they have to do is drop charges (which doesn't count as a loss.)
In a low-profile case like mine, the prosecutor had an embarrassing moment, but no biggie.
11/
One reason it's so high: when they see they're going to lose, all they have to do is drop charges (which doesn't count as a loss.)
In a low-profile case like mine, the prosecutor had an embarrassing moment, but no biggie.
11/
In this case, the prosecutor didn't even get an adverse ruling on the motion.
As soon as it was clear which way the wind was blowing, he asked for a recess and said he wanted to talk to me.
That was the end of it.
12/
As soon as it was clear which way the wind was blowing, he asked for a recess and said he wanted to talk to me.
That was the end of it.
12/
So you see, Dear People on Twitter, this is why I keep saying, "I make no predictions. I don't know who will be charged because I haven't seen the evidence."
Evidence can look airtight . . . but, you never know what comes out later.
13/
Evidence can look airtight . . . but, you never know what comes out later.
13/
Well, in this case, it worked because the prosecutor took everything at face value.
Had he probed a little more, he might have seen that the case was stronger against the truck driver, who owned the truck and actually consented to the search.
Had he probed a little more, he might have seen that the case was stronger against the truck driver, who owned the truck and actually consented to the search.
https://twitter.com/HarlemSheiks/status/1501252195538268166
And sigh. Writing this thread won't help. Tomorrow 50 people will curse certain prosecutors and shout: "But why haven't they all been charged yet! The evidence is airtight!"
That's why I say my job on Twitter feels like putting out forest fires with a squirt gun.
That's why I say my job on Twitter feels like putting out forest fires with a squirt gun.
My favorite comment: But, but a former prosecutor said XX and HE SHOULD KNOW.
One point of the story is prosecutors are not always right.😆
Another point: nobody outside of the DOJ has seen the DOJ's evidence or knows the strategy.
One point of the story is prosecutors are not always right.😆
Another point: nobody outside of the DOJ has seen the DOJ's evidence or knows the strategy.
Also, keep in mind this was a super simple straightforward case. 2 people, one truck, and some illegal drugs.
As Merrick Garland said about the Jan. 6 case, it's "one of the largest, most complex, and most resource-intensive investigations"
Also⤵️
justice.gov/opa/speech/att…
As Merrick Garland said about the Jan. 6 case, it's "one of the largest, most complex, and most resource-intensive investigations"
Also⤵️
justice.gov/opa/speech/att…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
