Posted on Dec 10, 2019

Bruce Tharpe Law Office

The Powdered Donut Defense is Alive! (Part 2)

In this case, my first line of attack was the parents’ attic. I directed my questions to the arresting officer.

"Were other people in the house?" I asked.

"Yes," the officer responded.

"Did other people have access to the attic?"

"Yes."

"Is it possible that the crack pipes could have been left there by someone else?"

"Yes."

"Did you find any fingerprints on the crack pipes?"

"No." (They didn’t check.)

"Did you find any crack pipes on my client’s person?"

"No."

"There were no drugs found in or on my client’s actual possession?"

"No."

"Now, the white powder on my client’s face. Do you have any idea what that white powder was on my client’s face?"

"No."

"YOU DIDN’T TEST THE POWDER ON MY CLIENT’S FACE?"

"No."

"So any testimony about what that white powder is on my client’s face is pure speculation, is it not?"

"Correct."

And then I asked the question:

"THAT SUBSTANCE ON MY CLIENT’S FACE—YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS—IT COULD HAVE BEEN POWDERED SUGAR, COULDN’T IT?"

The officer had no choice but to agree with me.

The result was reasonable doubt as to actual possession.

Jury verdict: Not Guilty.

The Cameron County District Attorney’s Office still refers to this case as “The Powdered Donut Defense.”
Contact Us
Message sent. We'll get back to you soon.