The case

Since none of the jury ended up being sick or anything, they sent us two alternates home when the jury retired for deliberation, so I don't know how the case ended.

It was drug case, defendant charged with "Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Schedule II, namely crack cocaine, With Intent to Distribute." Seems that in early 2007 he had the unfortunate chance to be driving around with 1) a guy who was the subject of an arrest warrant the local drug task force was attempting to effect; 2) another guy carrying 40 rocks of crack cocaine; and 3) $1121 in his wallet, mostly in $20s.

When the vehicle they were in was stopped by law enforcement, he and the crack-carrying guy jumped out and ran into the house they'd pulled in to. An officer followed them to the house, which was full of people, and asked them to step back out. He located the homeowner, asked if he could search the house, and then searched the area where the two had been seen, and found the bag of crack. He then searched the two and found the money on the defendant.

The state alleged that the two were involved in a "major drug organization operating in Natchitoches Parish." They put on the stand the state trooper who had followed them in to the house, the sheriff's officer who was in charge of the operation, the officer who pulled over the vehicle, and another sheriff's officer who was allowed as an expert witness in drug trafficking and distribution. The expert testified about the general operations of low- to mid-level drug dealer's - namely, that usually the one with the drugs didn't carry the cash. He just accepted it, and then carried it to his boss. He also explained that usually rocks of crack were sold for $20 or $40; in his experience, finding someone with a lot of $20s with someone with drugs meant a connection between the drugs and the money.

The defense said that the money had come from winnings at the casino a few nights prior. The defendant's fiancee stated that they had won about $1800, and he had given it to her to hold for him. The night before his arrest, he came to her for some of the money to help bail a friend out of jail. The man who had been holding the crack had plead guilty to possession with intent to distribute, and testified the drugs were his, and his alone, and that neither of the other occupants of the vehicle had any knowledge of his carrying it.

There was some conflicting testimony over where the defendant was in the house when he was arrested, and over the location of a cooler he may or may not have been sitting on. None of that, in my opinion, really mattered, because where he was didn't matter in relation to his actual possession of the drug. None of the testimony had him ever in actual contact with the drug; what the state was actually trying to prove was something called "constructive possession," which is, essentially, when you have power or control over someone who possesses drugs, or can control what they do with it.

The case came down to where the money came from: was it drug money, or gambling money? The defendant and his fiancee testified that they went to the casino about 3 times a month. The state wanted to know how a man with no car, who cut hair in his carport, and cut lawns on the side, could afford to go to the casino 3 times a month - obviously, it was drug money. The defense argued that it was a lifestyle choice of young men in the black community. The state argued that the defendant was a repeat offender - previously he plead guilty to distribution of marijuana, distribution of cocaine, and possession of cocaine. The defense argued that previously, he had plead because he had been guilty, but that now he was fighting because he was innocent.

The case only took one day; kind of wish I'd been able to stick around for the deliberation and verdict.