By Mariel Barbadillo
On the morning of July 20, 2016, the prosecution and defense made their closing arguments in the case of Keith Scott, a man charged with bringing drugs into a jail.
When searched by police, Mr. Scott admitted to carrying a knife, marijuana, and a pipe. He did not, however, disclose that he also possessed methamphetamine. This was later discovered inside the Yolo County Jail, and Mr. Scott claimed he had forgotten about it.
The prosecuting attorney said that, although Mr. Scott admitted to having a knife, it is not a crime. And while non-medical marijuana is illegal, the defendant was carrying such a small amount that it was deemed inconsequential. The officer also said he would not cite the defendant for the pipe.
It was noted that Mr. Scott was previously arrested in a case involving methamphetamine and paraphernalia in 2013.
The prosecution suggests the defendant found a better way of concealing the drug this time – by hiding it in his shoe. If Mr. Scott did hide the meth inside of his shoe, according to the prosecution, he would have felt it against his foot and would not have forgotten it was there.
The prosecution said the argument that the defendant simply forgot he had meth on his being as he entered the jail is “just plain ridiculous.”
Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt began his closing argument by motioning to Mr. Scott and saying, “Drug user, not drug smuggler.”
The defense argued that, given the defendant disclosed his possession of a knife, marijuana and a pipe, he had no motive to hide that he had meth as well. The only reasonable explanation is that he forgot.
Referring to security footage, Mr. Van Zandt said it is not clear that the meth was hidden at the bottom of Mr. Scott’s foot as the prosecution says. He argued that they do not know exactly where the meth was kept.
Mr. Van Zandt suggests the meth may have fallen out of Mr. Scott’s backpack. In that case, it would not be a crime because the defendant would not have known that his backpack would be taken into the jail as well.
Furthermore, the defense claims the video does not show evasiveness on behalf of Mr. Scott. He was not under the influence and appeared to be “calm and nonchalant.”
The defense reiterated that Mr. Scott has been through the process of being searched by police officers before, since this is not his first time being arrested. This indicates that the defendant knew what to expect during the process and thus would have known not to hide the meth.
The defendant told the officer three times that he had a pipe, which was located in his sock, near where the prosecution says he hid the meth. In fact, the defendant was “rather chatty” with the officer, which Mr. Van Zandt says is something that attorneys advise their clients not to do. Instead of exercising his right to remain silent, he was truthful and volunteered the information about the pipe, along with the knife and marijuana.
The defense described this case as simply being about “an honest guy who forgot.”
The prosecution took the floor again for final argument. Referring to the defense’s “drug user, not drug smuggler” comment, the prosecution restated that the defendant is not being charged with smuggling. He is being charged with bringing meth within the confines of the Yolo County Jail.
Concerning the pipe, the prosecution argued that Mr. Scott only told the officer about the pipe because he knew he was going to be searched and he knew the officer was going to find the pipe sticking out of his sock.
The meth, on the other hand, was concealed and not easily found in a pat down search.
Referring back to the video evidence, the prosecution described the officer taking a quick glance at the defendant’s shoe when the meth falls out, asserting that the defendant did in fact hide the meth inside his shoe.
Closing arguments concluded with a call for the jurors to use their common sense and focus on what is reasonable. According to the prosecution, the defense’s argument is unreasonable.
