Fingerprints Found on Drugs

For anyone that was interested in my husband's case....

If anyone remembers....they were saying that my husband's fingerprint was on a bag of residue. That looked really suspicious and guilty according to everyone that read my previous thread. Turns out that the fingerprint was on a completely empty bag. The one single fingerprint they had wasd on a totally empty ziploc bazg that happened to be in a box they found some drugs in. There was no residue or nothing. So we've filed a motion to compel the fingerprint.

Also wat the were at first saying was 67.22 grams of cocaine came back from the labs as only 29.41 grams of cocaine. Conveniently it's still over the 28 gram limit to be considered a trafficking charge. So our lawyer filed a motion so that he could have someone weigh it himself. What's really funnny is that the prsecution waited until the day before trial to let us know about all of this...so now...the trial has been moved back again to August.

So now... How does everyone think it's looking now?

I don't want to sound cynical, but I am simply not aware of any circumstance where an adult would voluntarily spend time in a drug house unless they were dealing or using. To spend multiple days there without being involved in dealing? That's a real stretch.

But sure, maybe a jury will believe that he was using the drug baggies to make sandwiches, didn't participate in any transactions, and was just looking for a (particularly uncomfortable) place to crash. Stranger things have happened.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

I don't want to sound cynical, but I am simply not aware of any circumstance where an adult would voluntarily spend time in a drug house unless they were dealing or using. To spend multiple days there without being involved in dealing? That's a real stretch.

But sure, maybe a jury will believe that he was using the drug baggies to make sandwiches, didn't participate in any transactions, and was just looking for a (particularly uncomfortable) place to crash. Stranger things have happened.

---

Not to sound rude...but one more time...he wasn't doing anything excpet visiting his brother. What his brother did was on him and my husband shoudnt be held responsible. That's whata jury should believe. There's a thing called compelling evdience. Prosecution doesn't have it. Reasonable doubt is all over this case. Anyone with common sense would see that. All you see is that he was there and so were drugs.

What if it were you? Would you expect to be found guilty for being in the wrong place?

Not to state the obvious, but this was a drug house. If your brother-in-law runs a drug house and your husband hangs out in drug houses, you probably have some sense of what a drug house is like. Even if it's a relative who is running a drug house, you don't go there to spend a weekend with family.

Your song and dance may work with somebody who has never seen the inside of a drug house. And who knows? Maybe the jury won't have any idea what drug houses are like, and maybe the prosecutor will forget to show them the photographs of the filth and drug paraphernalia.

That house was spotless actually. The girl that was living there with his brother kept it that way becasue she had nothing else to do. I've seen the pictures. All they took pictures of are the drugs and the people in the house.
Besides..what the house looks like has nothing to do with fact of the case. It wasn't his house, he didn't live there, they have no proof of anything....

A spotless drug house... There's a first. (Nothing to do there but clean, sell drugs, use drugs, and that fourth thing your husband was doing? Which is fine, as long as the jury accepts the legitimacy of the fourth thing.)

Quote:

---

Quoting belangesamantha

---

That house was spotless actually. The girl that was living there with his brother kept it that way becasue she had nothing else to do. I've seen the pictures. All they took pictures of are the drugs and the people in the house.
Besides..what the house looks like has nothing to do with fact of the case. It wasn't his house, he didn't live there, they have no proof of anything....

---

Then you and hubby have nothing to worry about!

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/3/3_8_14.gif Didn't I have a long, drawn out debate with this poster on another site? I'm pretty sure I did. My question STILL remains unanswered as to how the police ONLY found one partial print on one baggy that was locked away, yet didn't find any other evidence that he had been in the house. Do you mean to say that your hubby (who, if I remember correctly, was either not hubby at that time or there was a seperation) literally only touched that one little baggy that was locked in a box? Or maybe, just maybe....the gf kept the house "spotless" with a nice bottle of bleach to erase any prints. Hmmmmmmm.......

Still not buying it. Maybe you will have better chances with the jury.

Most likely the police didn't look for evidence of his presence elsewhere in the house. He was caught there - there is no apparent dispute that he was there. More conventionally, the police would be concerned with trying to establish who within the house was responsible for drugs or contraband they found, which means testing the drugs and drug paraphernalia for fingerprints, but not the doorknobs or TV remote control.

They dusted everything that they took from the house as far as that safes, the drugs, and all that contraband. There were none of his fingerprints on anything but that one empty baggie. They found other peoples fingerprints on the stuff but nothing on his.