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

Heading: The Government’s Appellate Arguments

Text: The government adds that the jury could have inferred Mr. Washington’s knowledge from  his presence when Mr. Edwards lied to his mother about why they needed to borrow the car,  the oddity of bringing so many heavy bags for an overnight trip to McAlester, and  indications that the two men were together when the car was packed. Appellee’s Resp. Br. at 50 (arguing that Mr. Washington “stood by while Edwards lied to his mother about going to Arkansas”); Oral Arg. at 38:0038:26 (arguing that the heavy luggage was too extensive for an overnight trip by two friends); Appellee’s Resp. Br. at 48 (arguing that the two men must have been together when “the bags and drugs and packaging materials” were loaded into the car). The first two arguments are based on mistaken interpretations of the trial testimony, and the third is insufficient to infer knowledge. The first argument is based on the testimony of Mr. Edwards’s mother. She testified briefly about why she had loaned the car to Mr. Edwards: Q. . . . Who actually asked you to borrow the vehicle? A. Maurice [Edwards] asked me to borrow the vehicle for Tony [Washington] to be able to go see his newborn baby. 9 Q. Okay. And do you remember where that newborn baby was located? A. To my knowledge, Arkansas. Record on Appeal, vol. 2 (Trial Transcript), pt. 2, at 299. But, she added that this discussion had taken place over the phone. Id. at 300. There was no evidence that Mr. Washington was on the telephone call or otherwise present with Mr. Edwards when he asked to borrow the car. Indeed, when the mother was asked if she had any discussion with Mr. Washington about using the car, she said that the only conversation took place the next day when she “told him to be safe and all that good stuff.” Id. at 302-03. The government’s second argument is also based on mistakes about the testimony. At oral argument, the government argued for the first time that Mr. Washington could have been suspicious because of the quantity of heavy luggage that Mr. Edwards was taking for a short trip to McAlester. 6 But there was no testimony about how long the two men were planning to stay in McAlester. 6 The government stated at oral argument: I think what you can look at is the fact that we have two guys that are supposed to be going on a short trip for the weekend. You know, a night, two nights. Their jeans are not even packed in the bags. And . . . and it just seems like, I was sitting here this morning, it just seems like a lot of bags for guys to go just on an overnight trip. It certainly seems like a lot of heavy bags . . . . Oral Arg. at 37:59-38:26. 10 Finally, the government argues that the two men must have been together when they put their belongings in the car. Appellee’s Resp. Br. at 48. But, even if Mr. Washington was present, what would he have seen? A black zipper bag, a red “Cold-Eeze” box, a “Green Tea Extract” bottle, and a black duffel bag? There is no evidence suggesting that Mr. Washington knew what was inside these four items. 11 According to the government, Mr. Washington would have seen a false-bottomed container, labelled “Puncture Seal,” 7 in the back seat. Id. But there were no drugs in this container. Record on Appeal, vol. 2 (Trial Transcript), pt. 1 at 196, 241.