Ok. So it is possible? Thank you.
I realize I provided a lot of information and you are no doubt a busy man. I apologize for the avalanche of info.
Please let me bring it down to a more tolerable level.
In an affidavit for search warrant a detective says a CI gave him information concerning a counterfeiting operation.
A search warrant was granted and executed.
During the search they found .02 of meth in a baggy that was not mine or in my possession, rather in my roommates room and belongings.
Also the uncovered a pawn ticket that lead them to a pawn shop and equipment I should not have pawned.
The next day the detective testified to a Grand Jury that the CI had given him information concerning drug use/sales, including personally witnessing 4 transactions. He as said that the CI had given him information concerning the pawning of equipment by me.
Now, for the sake of argument can we just assume that the CI DID NOT tell him this additional information at any time. He simply tailored his testimony to match the items uncovered during the search.
I believe the detective lied to ensure an indictment. I may or may not be correct in by thinking.
My question is: Do you feel I have any recourse due to the inconsistencies in the information present by the detective?
Would it be relevant or beneficial to my case to show these inconsistencies? In your opinion.
Or, at the end of the day does it really not matter what the detective testified to in affidavit and to the Grand Jury, as it wont have any bearing on my case?
Thank you for reviewing this again.

