Legal Analysis Memorandum
The case of Mr. Jonathan Brown presents a rather complicated example of presented evidence. The determination of whether the evidence provided is admissible takes a critical consideration of the observations by the police. Admissible evidence is one that is relevant to the case for which the suspect is accused of committing. Mr. Jonathan Brown is committing to crimes that have been marked as being illegal according to the law. First, Brown is charged with having a controlled substance as well as the possession of a firearm. The evidence provided in the case appears to be admissible in that Brown has acted against several outlined causes in the law. However, the police were quick to charge Mr. Brown despite the presence of other people in the people in the house. Mr. Brown could have been a visitor since he was not the owner of the house in which they were found. Also, the people who were found in the company of Mr. Brown were business partners, and Mr. Brown might not be in knowledge of the possessions found inside the house. Generally, the evidence of having a controlled substance should be investigated further to prove that Mr. Brown was in direct possession of the substance. Moreover, the issue of gun ownership is also subject to investigation.
The observation of the officers discovers handguns under the couches near Mr. Brown. The charges leveled against Mr. Brown indicated that he was in wear, carry, or transport of firearms. However, the evidence may not be admissible under the notion that Mr. Brown had gone to visit friends, and thus the handguns were not found in Mr. Brown’s hands. Besides, Mr. Brown was not responsible for the contents insides his friends’ house. Also, the police officers might have decided to frame false charges on Mr. Brown since for the notion that he was found in a home where a controlled substance was also found. Furthermore, the case was reported b a concerned citizen who is not considered in the charges placed against Mr. Brown though the citizen could have had hidden agendas before reporting to the police. Generally, the evidence presented is admissible to the extent that the police can prove that the substance and firearms belonged to Mr. Brown.
The evidence presented exposes Mr. Brown to the specifications of the statutes provided. First, the distribution, intent to distribute the dispensation of a controlled or harmful substance, exposes the suspect to imprisonment not exceeding five years. However, the amount of the substance should be significant to support the claim that the suspect intended to distribute the substance. Also, the suspect should not be charged if the substance is a prescription from a licensed provider. Therefore, Mr. Brown is in a position to present a counterclaim if the substance was a prescription or is the amount was not significant to have the charges placed upon him. On the issue of the possession of firearms, the evidence should consider the registration status of the firearms. However, Mr. Brown could be charged for demeanor even if he did not know about the firearms found on his presence. The application of the legal standards leads to two primary forms of legal actions that the suspect could be facing.
The two crimes lead to a case against felon and demeanor, which are both punishable by law. Felony is explained from a case of intended or active drug trafficking where the suspects could be distributing, intending to distribute, or even dispensing the controlled substances (Murphy, 2018). Marijuana is among the controlled substances that are only allowed to be used under a prescription by a registered practitioner. Therefore, the case of a felony is developed b leveling challenges against Mr. Brown for being in a house were Marijuana was being dispensed. Besides, the police have admitted to spotting Mr. Brown giving a baggie to one of his friends, and thus he was distributing the substance. The issue of demeanor occurs because Mr. Brown is not found in direct possession of firearms. However, the discovered guns were in a close distance, and Mr. Brown was aware of their presence. Besides, the firearms were in a scene of drug dealing, and the law treats the ownership of firearms in the presence of drugs as a separate crime. Therefore, Mr. Brown has two cases to answer, both felon and misdemeanor.
In sum, the evidence of having a controlled substance should be investigated further to prove that Mr. Brown was in direct possession of the substance. Moreover, the issue of gun ownership is also subject to investigation. The evidence presented is admissible to the extent that the police can prove that the substance and firearms belonged to Mr. Brown. The firearms in the case were in a scene of drug dealing, and the law treats the ownership of firearms in the presence of drugs as a separate crime. Therefore, Mr. Brown has two cases to answer, both felon and misdemeanor.
References
Murphy, K. (2018). Buying into Criminal Liability: Resolving the Circuit Split over the Buyer-Seller Rule in Federal Drug Conspiracy Jurisprudence. Or. L. Rev., 97, 183.