How do you think we should proceed concerning Jones' February 6, 2005 cocaine possession?
In Jones’ February 6, 2005 cocaine possession charge, it is essential to keep the faith with our criminal informant as an effective measure of avoiding his potential sentencing. According to the promises made to Jones, any drug offenses committed in the presence of the undercover agent will be ignored. However, this should not be taken to mean that the law enforcement department will turn a blind eye to the performance of crimes. The institution should show that the while the actions of Jones as an informant are commendable, this will not be a leeway of enabling his continued practice in abusing controlled drugs. The informant should be made aware of the importance of upholding his end of the deal by keeping away from bad company and avoid overtly engaging in similar practices of breaking the law. For the latest charge, the joint task force will be an integral factor in depicting the kind of treatment that Jones will receive. It is evident that he has played a primary role in the successful completion of the mission (Strathdee, Beletsky, & Kerr, 2015). Reducing the charges against Jones from drug possession to drug paraphernalia makes the case admissible in State, Municipal, and County courts. The confidential informant will avoid maximum sentences that can extend up to 43 months of incarceration and up to $100,000 fine.
He will probably plead guilty unless we send him to federal court. Where do you want to file the case?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are three possible areas where the state may file a case against Jones. As previously mentioned, the federal court is not an option. It is noted that a third strike offense has been committed by the individual hence filing the case in a federal court is the most appropriate course of action. However, due to Jones’ cooperation with the undercover agent and determination to help the task force identify, monitor, and capture major actors in the illegal drug industry, law enforcement officers will undertake significant action to prevent him from receiving a harsh sentence. The reduced charge will serve as one action that the task force can use to show amnesty to the informant (Adda, McConnell, & Rasul, 2014). Some of the possible courts where the reduced charge will become admissible and lead to probable probation or minimal incarceration period include Sedgwick County District Court for the State of Kansas, Wichita Municipal Court, and US District Court. The most appropriate place to file the charges is Wichita Municipal Court. Changing the charges to a paraphernalia case ensures that it qualifies as a minor offense that gives the municipal court jurisdiction to preside over. It is noted that the case report does not clearly identify the amount of cocaine found in the possession of Jones, hence it can qualify as a drug paraphernalia (Shermer, & Johnson, 2010). The US District Court also has the power to reduce charges for defendants identified to be cooperative with the law enforcement officers.
Where do you want to file this case against Smith?
Through the confidential informant, our undercover agent has been able to make contact with Smith, one of the drug dealers in the area. Contact was made on two occasions, July 12, 2005 and August 3, 2005. It was only until these instances where it is possible for the undercover agent to persuade Smith to make drug purchases. One of major weakness of this case is the lack of substantial evidence that demonstrates that Smith is a repeat offender and a significant threat in the fight against sale of controlled drugs (Shermer, & Johnson, 2010). Due to the lacking evidence that shows the occurrence of a crime beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is actively involved in the selling of drugs. The joint taskforce will seek to develop a case around answering the facts and identifying the laws that the defendant has breached (Piehl, & Bushway, 2007). It is important that such a case requires further investigation by members of the taskforce by seeking search warrants to be used as evidence against Smith. In this regard, the case should be filed in a district court. The US District Court is the best fit for this case as it helps the judges evaluate evidence presented and answer questions of law to determine the criminal offenses committed (Shermer, & Johnson, 2010). Jones testimony may not be required against Smith as the undercover agents will present a more credible witness.
Where do you think we should file the case against Thompson?
The most appropriate place to file the case against Thompson is in the federal district court. It is evident that the case against the defendant is a special one in various ways. To begin with, the undercover agents have learnt that on he is a major dealer in the area, but not a supplier to other dealers. His role in de drug trade was noted after he sold to Jones, our confidential informant for at least five occasions. Secondly, the case is special as the joint task force would like to demonstrate amnesty to Jones by keeping him out of the case as a witness for the prosecution (Johnson, Ulmer, & Kramer, 2008). In this regard, the prosecutor has to ignore this information to avoid losing credibility in the case. As an informant to the taskforce, the taskforce is likely to lose the conviction of Thompson as it may be identified that he was coerced to commit a crime that he had not thought of previously. Alternatively, the case may use the federal district court to seek search warrants that will help identify a hidden safe with large amounts of cash, quantities of cocaine, and unregistered firearms (Shermer, & Johnson, 2010). The warrant is likely to provide the state with multiple felony accounts that will result in higher penalties for drug sales, possession, and possession with intent to distribute.
References
Adda, J., McConnell, B., & Rasul, I. (2014). Crime and the depenalization of cannabis possession: Evidence from a policing experiment. Journal of Political Economy, 122 (5), 1130-1202.
Johnson, B. D., Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (2008). The social context of guidelines circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46 (3), 737-783.
Piehl, A. M., & Bushway, S. D. (2007). Measuring and explaining charge bargaining. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23 (2), 105-125.
Shermer, L. O. N., & Johnson, B. D. (2010). Criminal prosecutions: Examining prosecutorial discretion and charge reductions in US federal district courts. Justice Quarterly, 27 (3), 394-430 .
Strathdee, S. A., Beletsky, L., & Kerr, T. (2015). HIV, drugs and the legal environment. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26 , S27-S32.
