Police detective
was off-duty and walking the property line of some land he was
contemplating purchasing. This land was in the same municipality
where he worked. During this walk he discovered a very large,
mature marijuana grow in an adjacent swamp. He returned later
with other detectives, a warden and drug agents. When they came
upon the grow, an individual was spotted tending to the marijuana
plants. The officers surrounded the individual who came face to
face with officers, then ran across the swamp and escaped. The
officers that were not familiar with Client, viewed the client
at a later date. A search warrant was executed on the Client’s
home and items similar to those found in the swamp were found
on the Client’s property.
The state
called all of the officers in the swamp on the day in question,
who testified to their observations and their relative positions
to the client at the time of the incident. The officers all positively
identified the Client as the individual that they tried to apprehend
that day.
The defense called the client and the law enforcement officer
who had taken the Client’s sneakers into custody days after
the incident. The officer was asked about the sneakers and why
they were not used in the final investigation. The Client denied
being there that day, denied being a drug dealer and denied being
the individual who created the elaborate marijuana grow and irrigation
system. The defense closed with an analysis of the quality of
the state’s evidence and what they did not produce for evidence
to link the Client to the crime.
