Connect with Us:
Case 1: Possession PDF Print E-mail
A client came to me just days before the start of her trial when she was charged with a taillight violation and possession of a schedule III drug, hydrocodone. I filed a motion to suppress alleging the officer had illegally detained my client, but after a highly contested hearing the judge ruled against my client and we proceeded to trial.

Hydrocodone is actually listed as a schedule II drug and a schedule III drug under Georgia law. Under schedule III, the state has to prove a certain purity or mixture. The only evidence the state offered at trial was a crime lab chemist who simply stated the drug she tested was a schedule III drug without mentioning how she came to that conclusion. At the end of the state’s case, I moved for a directed verdict because the state hadn’t presented any evidence to the mixture or quality of the drug as required by law.

After a long debate, the judge denied my motion. As I began my direct examination of my client, the judge halted the trial, told the jury to leave the room, and called the prosecutor and myself to the bench. He realized I was right and reversed his ruling and granted the directed verdict for my client. My client then pled guilty to the brake light violation and was fined twenty-five dollars.
 
Case 1: Possession PDF Print E-mail
A client came to me just days before the start of her trial when she was charged with a taillight violation and possession of a schedule III drug, hydrocodone. I filed a motion to suppress alleging the officer had illegally detained my client, but after a highly contested hearing the judge ruled against my client and we proceeded to trial.

Hydrocodone is actually listed as a schedule II drug and a schedule III drug under Georgia law. Under schedule III, the state has to prove a certain purity or mixture. The only evidence the state offered at trial was a crime lab chemist who simply stated the drug she tested was a schedule III drug without mentioning how she came to that conclusion. At the end of the state’s case, I moved for a directed verdict because the state hadn’t presented any evidence to the mixture or quality of the drug as required by law.

After a long debate, the judge denied my motion. As I began my direct examination of my client, the judge halted the trial, told the jury to leave the room, and called the prosecutor and myself to the bench. He realized I was right and reversed his ruling and granted the directed verdict for my client. My client then pled guilty to the brake light violation and was fined twenty-five dollars.