Accused by person caught in posession

[policetac]

Here's the deal. Have a friend who's husband is being held on Ex-con in poss of firearm, Theft of firearm, and trafficking of stolen property.
Owner of firearm noticed at some later time his gun was missing, and assumed it was taken by defendant. Stated to officers, he believed this. As defendant was living in the same residence w/his wife, w/full access to apt for over a month, and the house having had a fair amount of daily traffic permitted by the owners.
There was no signs of forced entry, no additional physical evidence to support claim of theft other than their belief.
Later, another male ex-con was caught in actual physical posession of the firearm by law enforcement. At that time he stated that he had purchased the gun from the defendant. (I assume by doing this he escaped an ex-con in poss himself.) Hence the trafficking charge, (for supposedly selling the gun) and the poss of firearm. (by supposedly "handing" the gun during the comission of the sale) No corraboration by purchaser of knowledge of how the defendant would have came into possession of the gun to be able to sell it to him.
No physical evidence on the firearm such as prints were found linking defendant.
Defendant arrested by law enforcement using deception at the door, with only an arrest warrant, entering the residence without permission, using gentle force, but being denied actual permissions. Officers had only a suspicion along with their warrant for "arrest" not search. No exigent circumstances accompanied this entrance. Defendant found in the home, out of plain view, subsequently arrested on suspicion of the previously mentioned charges.
Here's the point. As mentioned, home owner only "assumes" def. comitted the theft. Corraborating witness was ex-con caught in poss. who also had access to the house by permission of the home owner, and a clear reason to possibly lie regarding how he came about being in posession. No phys evidence to substantiate either claim.
Defendant being informed that prosecution will persue habitual criminal enhancements if he fails at trial. Defendant has many facial tattoos, previous record, and no real evidence of innocence.
How can an inditement be persued based on questionable witness testimony when no corraborating phys evidence is submitted?
Any ideas, defenses, or supportive case law would be greatly appreciated as I have reasonable doubt of his guilt just on the lack of evidence alone. Defendant is poor and is being defended by the state.
Thank you for any and all help that is given. I will be watching this post closely and will attempt to give any additional information I can to assist with creating dialog that assists my friends husband.
Sincerely,
policetac@yahoo.com

[aaron]

It's a good case. The suspect had access to the stolen weapon, and was a suspect in the theft before the stolen gun resurfaced. The person who was caught with the stolen weapon identifies the suspect as the person who sold it to him. The suspect has no innocent explanation for how that could have happeend.

[policetac]

I understand your arguement. However, as the second party was also linked to the house and it's residents, doesn't it follow that he would/could have also been informed by the home owner or another connected party that the defendant had been accused by the home owner? Thus leaving the second party to have information that would allow him to "Pin it on the defendant?"
I believe it could even be argued that the second ex-con could have, (If he was the true actor,) a perfect (Yet just as circumstantial) aliby to a crime that he himself could have perpetrated?
Thank you for your response. I appreciate it and look forward to more feedback regarding this matter. It keeps me thinking, However, I still see reasonable doubt. I hope that actual rules of court and evidence bear this out.
Again, thank you,
Sincerely,
policetac@yahoo.com

[seniorjudge]

I believe it could even be argued that the second ex-con could have, (If he was the true actor,) a perfect (Yet just as circumstantial) aliby to a crime that he himself could have perpetrated?

Circumstantial evidence is the strongest evidence you can have.

[policetac]

How's that? And if so didn't I also just make my case?
Thank you.
policetac@yahoo.com

[seniorjudge]

How's that?

The circumstantial evidence of dog tracks in the mud outweighs the eyewitness testimony of ten thousand angels that no dog passed this way.


Ask Scott Peterson: He got sentenced to death based solely on 100% circumstantial evidence.

[policetac]

True. I was living in Fresno during his conviction. But you know? Even though my gut said he did it, I was able to find doubt. I mean, one of the most damning pieces was a hair found in his boat. Can I really believe that a proud new owner of a boat could not get his wife to sit in it even if only in the driveway and drop a piece of hair?
I appreciate your opinion, but I guess it comes a bit of a shock to me just how much the truely bad ones have screwed it up for some of the rest of us. I guess society has simply had enough.
Please respond again as all opinions are welcomed.
And may God have mercy on his soul! LOL
I still think theres reasonable doubt though.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
policetac@yahoo.com

[policetac]

Besides, wouldn't/couldn't the tracks be analized and considered physical evidence?
policetac@yahoo.com

[policetac]

K, prosecution just offered to drop the ex-con in possession, we're going to see discovery tomorrow.
I could still use a little feedback if there's anyone out there with a few ideas.
Thanks again,
Sincerely,
policetac@yahoo.com