Opinion ID: 2795796
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prosecutor’s Arguments at Trial

Text: In closing argument, the prosecutor referred to two pieces of evidence: the smell of marijuana in the car and the presence of aluminum foil near Mr. Washington’s notebook. Both pieces of evidence suggest consumption, not distribution. If the car smelled like marijuana, perhaps Mr. Washington might have smoked marijuana during the trip. And, if he did smoke marijuana in the car, he might have suspected or even known that there was more marijuana stashed in the car. The problem is there was no evidence that Mr. Washington could have known there was enough marijuana for someone to sell. Though the government presented evidence of a marijuana odor, no one testified whether the odor had involved burnt marijuana or raw marijuana. See Oral Arg. at 34:19-34:30 (government counsel’s admission that she had been unable to find evidence stating whether the smell involved burnt marijuana). Apparently, there was enough marijuana for someone to smoke during the car trip. But, there was no evidence indicating that the smell would have alerted a passenger to the presence of a distributable quantity 6 of drugs. See id. at 34:30-34:49 (government counsel’s admission that the smell of burnt marijuana “may not” speak to whether Mr. Washington could have known there were bricks of marijuana in the car); see also United States v. Sanchez-Mata, 925 F.2d 1166, 1168 (9th Cir. 1991). 2 The prosecutor also referred to the presence of aluminum foil in Mr. Washington’s duffel bag. But, the evidence regarding aluminum foil involved only drug consumption, not distribution. 3 Mr. Washington was not convicted of merely consuming or possessing drugs; he was convicted of 2 There the defendant was riding in a car. Sanchez-Mata, 925 F.2d at 1167. An agent smelled marijuana from outside the car and found duffel bags containing 141 pounds of marijuana. Id. The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. Id. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed based on insufficiency of the evidence. Id. at 1168. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that the defendant had known “what marijuana smelled like and must have recognized the strong odor present.” Id. But, knowledge of the smell did not suffice, for “knowledge that drugs [had been] present [was] not enough to prove involvement in a drug conspiracy.” Id. 3 Officer DeLana was asked if he knew of any possibility that the aluminum foil would be used for “drug activity.” Record on Appeal, vol. 2 (Trial Transcript), pt. 2 at 278. Officer DeLana answered: “It could be used to smoke methamphetamine.” Id. He repeated this explanation: Q. Okay. Is it safe to say aluminum foil is consistent with narcotics use? A. Yes. Q. And you said it was to used [sic] to smoke methamphetamine? A. Yes. Id. at 279. 7 possessing drugs with the intent to distribute them or aiding and abetting that offense. And, there was no evidence for a jury to infer an intent to distribute from the presence of aluminum foil. Finally, the prosecutor argued that when Ms. Bethany Kendall and Mr. Washington had seen the police near the car, everybody had become nervous, Mr. Washington had hidden his phone in her room, and no one had asked the police why they were hovering near the car. Record on Appeal, vol. 2 (Trial Transcript), pt. 2, at 373-74. This argument is based on a mistake about Ms. Kendall’s testimony. The actual testimony was that Ms. Kendall and Mr. Washington had seen “a bunch of cop cars.” Id. at 287. Ms. Kendall did not testify that the police were near the rental car 4 or that Mr. Washington had hidden his phone in her apartment. 5 Ms. Kendall added that there was a set of car keys in her daughter’s shoes. Id. at 290. From this fact, Ms. Kendall “guess[ed]” that one of the two men had hidden his keys in the shoe. Id. We have no evidence about which man hid the keys or why this act would suggest Mr. Washington’s knowledge about the quantity of drugs in the car. 4 Record on Appeal, vol. 2 (Trial Transcript), pt. 2, at 292-93. 5 She did testify that two cellphones had been left out in the open in her apartment. Record on Appeal, vol. 2 (Trial Transcript), pt. 2, at 289. But, the police took Mr. Washington from the apartment. Id. at 288-90. There is nothing to suggest that he intentionally left his cellphone behind. 8