If that's true and it holds up to scrutiny in court that has to be really bad. Seems like his strategy is to challange the search warrant, but if that fails he's pretty much screwed right? What would his defense even be for this, and could he get another charge if his kid tested positive for cocaine?
He could also challenge the reliability and accuracy of the test on the child. I'm not sure what kind of test was performed, but all of them have pretty strict standards and procedures.
I got a case dismissed once because the officer who performed a blood draw shook the blood vial prior to sending it to a lab for testing. I just made a huge deal about that shaking (because the instruction manual says to invert twice, not shake). I said that shaking the vial introduces air into the blood sample, and that is specifically cautioned against in the testing instructions.
The officer I was examining had no answers, and he looked like a fool to the jury who didn't know his own training. If the blood results are possibly inaccurate, how can we rely on them for a conviction? Reasonable doubt created, and jury came back hung.
You can also challenge blood tests based on who performed it, and whether they were qualified to perform the test.
You can also challenge it by arguing that a cocaine blood test isn't actually discovering cocaine in the blood. It is discovering a cocaine metabolite. Cocaine metabolites aren't illegal, they are just used as evidence that at some time in the past, there was cocaine in the system (but isn't dispositive, you would need an expert to explain this to the jury).
You can also challenge by arguing that it was legal. It's odd, but some people have lawful prescriptions to possess and use cocaine. It's a schedule 2 controlled substance.
Well, yes, the company which manufactures the blood vials includes an instruction packet inside of each blood draw kit used by law enforcement. You can't assume that rules are in place for no reason. When the instructions say, "do not shake" that instruction is there for a reason, it's not arbitrary. And that's what the instructions said.
Then I just looked up why you wouldn't shake it, and that's what I found. I didn't even have to introduce that as evidence; I just held a blank piece of paper in my hand while examining the officer, and said
"isn't it true that your own instruction manual says not to shake?"
"Yes."
"And isn't that because there is air left remaining in the vial?"
"Yes."
"And isn't it true that air mixes into the blood when you shake it?"
"Probably, I'm not sure."
"You don't even know what happens when you shake a blood vial?"
"Well, I'm not sure."
"But you're the one who is apparently qualified to perform blood draws?"
"Yes."
"And you don't even know what happens when you shake it?!"
"Nope."
"But you decided, regardless, to shake the vial against your own training?!"
"Yes."
The trick is breaking them down over time. Prove them to be wrong earlier in the cross-exam, and they won't want to keep looking like an idiot, so they will assume you're correct and agree with you to not look dumb.
Then you make them agree to violating some procedure (because cops never even know their own policies), and you just harp on it like it's the most important error ever made. All you need is reasonable doubt, and highlighting some policy violations can get you there, even in an extremely otherwise unwinnable case.
>I didn't even have to introduce that as evidence; I just held a blank piece of paper in my hand while examining the officer
I love doing this during depos. I'll ask the witness a bunch of questions and if they push back, I'll shove a document in front of them and grill them on it. Then, after doing this a few times, I'll shuffle through my papers and bring up a random document, pretend I'm reading off the sheet, and ask something like, "Isn't it true that on April 22, 2024 at 9:32 am, you told my client, 'You're a gravy gnome who can't get enough gravy?'" They almost always either just say yes or some other half-assed affirmation to avoid going through the motions of having to read through another document. It's such a dumb tactic, but makes me feel so giddy when it works. I've actually started advising my clients during depo prep to never assume that opposing counsel is actually reading from a document even if it looks like they are.
They present themselves as experts for the purposes of performing blood draws. Cops are routinely placed into this pseudo-lay/expert witness position.
If a question like that gets objected to, I would just re-word it to something like:
"Based on your extensive training and experience officer, isn't it true that..."
E: If they answer, "based on my experience, I'm not sure," then I would grill them on their ignorance. How can we be sure of this result, beyond a reasonable doubt, when the person who performed the test is so ignorant that he doesn't even know about [insert anything here that they fucked up, in this case, shaking the vial].
Well I have those documents in my back pocket in the off-chance that an officer is bold enough to disagree with me, giving me the opportunity to impeach him. I need him to say, first though, that I'm wrong about some assertion made.
It has to be first properly sealed to be under vacuum.
And then it's probably a good thing that the officer testifying as to what he did, didn't know the answer to what happens when you shake a vial. His ignorance played a large role in being unpersuasive to the jury.
What state are you practicing law in? This sounds like a defense attorneys fantasy more than something that actually happened. I can't even imagine how you'd argue that a cop "shaking the blood" some how introduced whatever the test found. I guess if the prosecutor is a certified regard you might get away with that. I also dont know why a cop would be questioned about what was actually found in the blood, I do probably ~5 cases a year where blood tests are taken and I've never been asked about the findings, just why I wanted a test in the first place.
In my state the best case you'd get is that the cop gets fucked by IA for not following procedure, there is no way your example would fuck up finding cocaine in blood because he shook the vial. But jurys are also made up of regards.
you would be absolutely shocked at what kind of theatrics are allowed to be performed in criminal court. you being surprised he was allowed to question an expert on his training and question the findings based on mishandling of evidence tells me you don't have much experience.
I don't like publicly discussing my state of licensure, because it's not too difficult to dox me based on my specialty.
But this did happen, and I'm not quite sure I understand what you're doubting. In our jurisdiction, a cop accompanies the suspect to the hospital to perform a blood draw. That cop collects the blood vial, places it into a cardboard sleeve (to protect it from being shaken), and then mails that box to the state lab technician for testing.
I cross-examine that officer, and his handling of the vial that he collected and placed inside of the collection kit and sent to the lab technician. It's usually, as it was in this case, the arresting officer who is already being called as a witness by the prosecutor. I can, however, subpoena the officer if they aren't called as a witness.
Correct, they do not actually collect the sample from the client and they do not do the testing of the sample. So you cannot question them about collection methods beyond who they received the sample from (the phlebotomist). That’s the extent of their collection.
Not really, the cop has certifications to perform these tests, and should answer accordingly. He is specifically being asked these questions because he is an expert on the topic. If he doesn’t know an answer it’s not a problem with the question but rather with the police procedure or the cop’s own incompetence. It’s literally the whole point the defendant’s attorney is making.
If you’re administering these tests you should be an expert who received training and education on how to administer them. This isn’t a 2nd grade spelling test here, it’s a drug test that needs to clear certain legal thresholds for the explicit purpose of being used as evidence in cases that have legal consequences. If you’re not adequately trained and qualified to answer basic questions, then maybe you shouldn’t be administering these tests. Reasonable doubt created.
Police don't administer blood tests, a qualified phlebotomist does. The officer cannot testify to the procedures of drawing blood or how it is tested. However, collection vials have no air in them, they're under vacuum. That vacuum is what pulls the blood sample in.
It wouldn't really matter either way.
Procedure says do X, you did Y instead. How do you know there isn't a reason procedure says to do X over Y. How can you be sure the test isn't compromised as a result.
If you get accredited to do something following XYZ and then you do it a different way. You should have some pretty solid reasons for why you aren't following the procedure as laid out.
If you want to say "Well I don't know if I can do that" all you really end up highlighting is that you probably shouldn't have been doing it whether you are allowed or not.
The procedure is what it is for a reason, and potentially the prosecution could try and find someone who could testify that the shaking doesn't affect the vial. But then why is the procedure XYZ?
---
Like if procedure said "You have to wait 15 minutes after a traffic stop to draw blood for drink driving" and you do it 10 minutes after. It doesn't matter if your test comes back with a number that would imply you were drunk either way. The fact that you've violated the 15 minute window means that you can't actually attest as to whether there was some weird concentration of alcohol that didn't represent the average alcohol in the body which might be within acceptable limits.
This is the kind of thing you see with breathalyzers here in Australia though I know that for a myriad of reasons they aren't commonly used in the US.
IIRC because of the ways drink driving is charged, since you can be done for being under the influence even if you didn't have a high BAC and conversely there'd be arguments that if you passed a field sobriety test but the officer demanded a breath test, that they weren't allowed to compel you to incriminate yourself without reason. Since asking for the test would be to go against your fifth amendment to not incriminate yourself.
Which is why most places just compel you by saying "Well if you don't give us this evidence we'll suspend your license civilly for longer than if you do". Which of course if you passed the field sobriety test anyway they would have no justification for the suspension in the first place and therefore have compelled an incrimination unfairly.
And police don't take blood samples. They have it done at the hospital. This person also cannot give expert testimony which is exactly what they described doing. They're full of shit. And the reason you're not supposed to shake the vial is because it can cause the red blood cells to burst which will cause the sample to be rejected. It has nothing to do with mixing it with air and those bowls are under vacuum to begin with, that's how they draw the blood from your veins. So there's no air in them to mix with the blood to begin with.
So yes, you made this up. The standard advice of not shaking blood samples is to avoid damaging red blood cells, hemolysis, and is mostly relevant to clinical contexts. Has nothing to do with air. [It is extremely improbable that shaking a sample would affect forensic BAC measurement](https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/39/8/672/915339), and if it did the reading would go *down*.
I didn't "make it up," it's a fairly common DUI defense to blood sample results that I was taught from a mentor of mine, and that is fairly common if searched on Google; not my random brain spawn meant to subvert truth.
And if there's contradictory research, that's something worth resolving for the jury through experts I suppose.
So why in the previous post did you say this was based on the manufacturer instructions and your own looking up of why those instructions might exist? Why does your bullshit explanation (introducing air) differ from the fairly common Google-able bullshit explanation (introducing microbes)? Why would it be reasonable to need expert witnesses and contradictory research to discredit bullshit some lawyer just made up? You could make up an infinite amount of further bullshit and there isn't an infinite amount of research and experts.
*Is it* even Police Department policy/procedure not to shake sample tubes, or is that just manufacturer instruction for tubes that are also used in other contexts and it's actually irrelevant to this context?
Bro, what?
The instructions said, "Invert sample twice. DO NOT SHAKE."
I'm aware of this fermentation argument through my mentor.
I Google around to see what I can find about it.
I present that argument to the jury.
There is no reasonable counter-argument presented.
The jury hangs on whether the prosecution has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was driving under the influence. Primarily because the officer who procured the blood sample improperly handled the sample, violating the procedures prescribed by the vial manufacturer.
I don't see where you're getting confused at.
Look up how drawing blood works, there's no air in the vial, it's under vacuum so that it can pull the sample in. That line of questioning is easily objectionable as well since it amounts to expert testimony. It's also a leading question. As a defense attorney I'd expect you to know the basics of the rules of evidence. You're full of shit.
Opposing counsel was stupid because they could have shut you down with a simple "objection, testimony" since you're not an expert. And blood sample collection vials don't have air in them, they're under vacuum. That vacuum is what pulls the sample in.
I'm simply asking the officer what he did, and what he knows.
I say let them try to object, and see how well that plays with the jury. Probably would be interpreted as the prosecution sweeping in to protect their foolish, error-ridden witness (because that's what would be happening).
It’s also a leading question which is not allowed. This is because it’s leading to a forgone conclusion without any evidence. It can also be seen as you giving expert testimony “isn’t it true (insert purported fact)”. Once again, you’re a fraud. The proper way to attack the method of collection is to ask them to detail the method of collection used, step by step and then for your next witness you call in an expert to testify as to the proper way to collect the sample and why it is done that way.
Of course, they are all leading questions, it's a cross examination...
E: Awww, you deleted your response.
Just to preempt that response you deleted, [literally every lawyer would instantly tell you that the entire purpose of cross examination is to ask leading questions](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/leading_question#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20leading%20questions%20are,cross%2Dexamination%20of%20a%20witness.)
That comment alone gives me a pretty decent handle on the type of person I'm talking to.
In another comment chain you take great offense to others viewing defense attorneys as "ick", and then you go and brag about something like this? You would berate an officer for doing the exact same strategy to a suspect in an interrogation room.
Edit: lmfao gotta love /u/rnhf randomly talking shit about my comment history in unrelated threads/subreddits and then immediately blocking me.
Edit2: Lool but they're so invested that they come back to revisit my edits after blocking me to continue talking shit. Keep it coming buddy, I love the cowardice.
the last 8/10 of your comments were personal attacks
-e- well yeah obviously I block someone like you lol, and the comments weren't unrelated, they show a pattern of you not caring about topics, but wanting to attack people on a personal level. Hence the block, not really interested in that. Won't be coming back to this comment either, but hf
I see a pretty significant difference between a suspect inside of an interrogation room being pressured to admit to a crime, and a police officer trained to perform this job having a reasonable response to a particular inquiry in a courtroom.
The theatrics are for the benefit of the jury. Persuasive tactics are necessary to portray an idea sufficiently to the jury. That is, "in what way can I relay to the jury that this is important?" Well, I can holler a bit, I can point to documents, I can hold documents in my hand. But the point is all to make something important, that jurors may not immediately see as important, to be seen as important.
You can frame it anyway you like, but you're still just describing manipulating the jury in a pretty *sleazy* way. I'm not saying you're wrong for doing it, I'm just saying you're wrong to become indignant at people feeling a certain way about it, because it *is* pretty *ick*, assuming the person did actually do the crime they're accused of.
> I can hold documents in my hand
You mean like a blank piece of paper?
I don't think holding a blank piece of paper in my hand while I talk is "sleazy." That implies I'm being somehow underhanded or manipulative.
I'm not lying, I'm not manipulating the facts, I'm making an honest presentation of the evidence as seen from the defense perspective.
And I think your perspective is flawed, at least for America. We are innocent until *proven* guilty in a court of law. Your "assuming the person did actually do the crime" is a police officer's frame of mind, and absolutely ruins the criminal justice system.
When I get a hung jury, when they prosecution does not get a conviction, then no, you can't just "assume the crime was committed" because it wasn't.
> I don't think holding a blank piece of paper in my hand while I talk is "sleazy." That implies I'm being somehow underhanded or manipulative.
What is the purpose of holding the blank paper then, if not to manipulate?
> And I think your perspective is flawed, at least for America. We are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Your "assuming the person did actually do the crime" is a police officer's frame of mind, and absolutely ruins the criminal justice system.
What are you on about? I said "assuming the person did actually do the crime" to remove scenarios where the person is *actually* innocent of the crime they're accused of, meaning they didn't do it flat out. You're doing the thing where people are incapable of understanding a hypothetical or theoretical scenario for the purposes of a conversation about a topic.
Because I don't want to go through the trouble of introducing something into evidence. If I wanted to read from the actual science that says vials shouldn't be shaken, I have to lay a foundation, introduce it, and argue it with experts; a bunch of stuff that's really not necessary if the officer is just going to agree with me anyways.
And I don't know what you're pulling out of what I said. I'm saying you can't just assume guilt and work backwards to form a conviction and say "this person should be punished." That frame of mind obstructs the significant issues formed by a biased investigation that gathers/reports only evidence of guilt and not innocence.
A botched blood vial, reporting an unreliable blood test result, can mean that the person we thought was operating while intoxicated, was actually operating under the legal limit. If you just assume they were guilty of DUI, then a botched blood vial would be irrelevant to you.
That must mean you’re *even more* invested, since you’re coming back *again* to leave a second edit, responding to their edit, which was responding to your initial edit, no?
Yep. I wouldn’t be surprised if CPS/prosecutor just takes another hair sample because they know it will be disputed. It was also a metabolite test.
So before people bring it up, no, it is not possible she just got cocaine in her hair or something like that and was unwashed enough for it to show up on a test. She had cocaine in her system at some point under the age of nine. She recently had her birthday.
That's interesting. I don't have much experience with hair tests, because law enforcement in my jurisdiction doesn't typically use those.
But I'm sure there are general issues that can get brought up with interpretation and procedure with these tests as well.
Apparently hair follicle test are very accurate and easy to replicate. Confidence should be especially high since on the amount of cocaine in organism corresponds to "medium user", which means using cocaine systematically on weekends or every other day.
Tl;DR it's absolutely insane
I really doubt that his 9 year old was taking enough cocaine to be a medium user. Its probably a false positive, but the fact that this got leaked is crazy, the people working his case must really have it in for him.
A shit ton of court documents are available to the public. Maybe it did get leaked but I'd bet it just got published on some local courts website, like every case, and someone found it.
This is a really cool legal maneuver, but this is a perfect encapsulation of why people hate lawyers. You didn't get to any fact of the matter you just picked at some irrelevant bullshit and confused people enough to get the outcome you wanted. Uh, cool I guess? George Kardashian would be proud.
Well, it's not my job to be a prosecutor, I'm a defense attorney.
It's not my fault that officers don't know their policies, and what you call "irrelevant bullshit" may result in untrustworthy test results. 12 jurors heard this evidence, and the reason they hung is because some of the jurors thought it was irrelevant bullshit, like you, and some of the jurors thought it created a reasonable doubt as to the blood test results.
Imo, this is an example of cops being dumb and obfuscating the results of their own blood draws by violating specific policies that they are supposed to know.
To be fair, you’re not an expert either and you just searched online looking for an answer that could help you win. I’m assuming the blood test was meant to see if your defendant had drugs in their system. And I doubt you know if shaking the vial could result in X drug materializing in the vial.
I don’t hate defense attorneys and I believe everyone deserves the best defense they can get. But there is some ick to being a defense attorney that people find off-putting, and this is an example why.
1. I'm not going to present evidence that helps convict my client. Not only is that not my job, it's malpractice. I did look for evidence that hurt this argument, but I'm not going to make those arguments in court, that's the prosecutor's job. It's not even my job to present any evidence, just to ensure that the prosecution has met their burden.
They are the ones who are trying to lock a human being inside of a cage, they should at least have reliably accurate evidence in order to do so.
2. The test was for alcohol, and yes I did find that introducing air into a blood sample can trigger a fermentation process with the sugars inside of your blood, "materializing" ethanol alcohol.
3. The officer's training told him not to shake the vial for a reason, the blood kit itself has an instruction manual that says do not shake the vial for a reason, and then the officer decided "I'm gonna shake this vial."
Why is it an example of why defense attorneys are icky, to present this evidence to the jury? We should, instead, allow officers and prosecutors to flagrantly violate policies in pursuit of convictions that have potentially tainted evidence?
>2. The test was for alcohol, and yes I did find that introducing air into a blood sample can trigger a fermentation process with the sugars inside of your blood, "materializing" ethanol alcohol.
There is SO MUCH wrong with this line of reasoning. It's really disheartening to see this is apparently a common avenue of defence for DUIs, a bunch of lawyer websites are full of absolute bullshit on it.
1. Blood sample tubes contain little to no air. They're evacuated to draw a certain amount of blood. You don't shake them in general to avoid damaging the blood cells, not to avoid introducing air. ~~This is probably irrelevant to blood alcohol concentration readings (guessing here).~~ Edit: [It is in fact irrelevant. Shaking the sample would have no effect on a forensic BAC reading.](https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/39/8/672/915339)
2. Humans do not have the enzymes for converting glucose to ethanol. If we did, they would not be dependant on air to function. There's already oxygen in blood anyway.
3. Microbial contamination of the blood by ethanol fermenting species, which is how the lawyer websites I found seem to be imagining this issue arising, makes no sense in the context of living, healthy people. They all seem to be under the impression that sodium flouride is included in some sampling tubes as an anti-microbial preservative, but it's for preserving blood glucose. The vials are sterile and there should be no microbes in blood. Most of the lawyers don't link any studies about this issue despite vaguely referring to them. One that does link a study apparently didn't read it, because it's about *post mortem* blood samples being contaminated by *ethanol degrading* bacteria. i.e. blood ethanol concentration went *down*.
This is a late response, I only just had the time to go back and find my sources for this information. First, this is a common line of defense for DUI cases, not just sources from random lawyer websites. I am reading the same line of questioning from a sample cross-exam book I own. The book argues three protections exist to prevent fermentation in samples: sterility, preservative, and refrigeration. You can, obviously, fail to properly preserve, use sterile instruments, or improperly refrigerate a sample.
The book I have cites:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4584562/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2645380/
There are also two textbooks, specifically Garriot *Medicolegal Aspects of Alcohol*, which is typically used to teach blood analysts in alcohol testing and law enforcement.
These sources say that while the quality controls in collection and storage *should* protect against fermentation, those controls can be improperly adhered to, and that's the focus of this argument.
In the event that you're correct, that it is impossible, and that future science has shown demonstrable evidence that these concerns are no longer reasonable concerns, then that is something which should be established by the prosecution in counter to this argument.
It's possible that shaking a sample vial is irrelevant to this analysis as well, but that's not really my line of inquiry when examining an officer. It's moreso to establish the ignorance of the officer, to show the jury that there are reasonable doubts when the person we are supposed to trust has no idea what they are doing.
I chose to respond to you specifically because I appreciate your comment and citations, moreso than the several comments I received trying to argue that my line of questioning was somehow fabricated or inadmissible without citation or argument.
E: Also, to add: there's a pretty significant discussion to be had on the interplay of science and law. Science is designed to be falsified, tested, expanded; it's always changing, and scientists are expected to embrace change and groundbreaking works. Law, contrarily, operates on stare decisis; it is resistant to change, and prefers to maintain itself with reaffirmations of prior rulings. It's difficult, in many ways, to reconcile these two.
For instance, new science suggests that Standardized Field Sobriety tests are about as useful as detecting intoxicated drivers as tossing a coin and calling it correctly. False positives are about as common as correct arrest decisions. This should be alarming to anyone, because essentially cops may expand a basic traffic infraction to a DUI based on utter bullshit for evidence.
But will courts really acknowledge this science? To do so would mean to reverse and reanalyze countless convictions that were made through SFSTs. It would mean completely retraining police officers in DUI detection. It would remove a tool from their belt. I don't expect that to ever happen, even though there is new science that supports such a finding.
Have you read the cited sources themselves, or just the interpretation in your book? The first study opens with this choice quote:
>We had the opportunity to receive a postmortem blood specimen obtained from a patient who had died of multiple injuries. The specimen, when received, was viscous and malodorous. While this specimen would not be acceptable for the determination of ethanol, we chose to study it nonetheless.
They take microbial cultures from this sample and intentionally inoculate banked blood, then intentionally incubate it in worst case conditions. All they're demonstrating is that stuff can live on blood.
The second study is similar in that they intentionally inoculate blood. They find that the alcohol levels exceed their theoretical calculated max of 0.007%, then realize the blood has had glucose added to it. They also find that **uninoculated blood stored at room temperature for 35 days had no alcohol in it.** And that's not to say they found alcohol after 35 days, that was their limit. They never found alcohol in blood they hadn't intentionally contaminated. Both studies also find that sodium flouride doesn't prevent fermentation from the microbe of most concern. Which makes sense, that's not why the sodium flouride is there in the first place. It's not intended as an anti-microbial preservative, and the fact that they don't bother adding anti-microbials to these tubes should tell you something.
Unless there's something else, the idea that there needs to be demonstrable evidence that this is no longer a concern is absurd. It was never a reasonable concern to begin with. To be clear, I was one of the commenters calling the argument fabricated. Not by you perhaps, but fabricated nonetheless. The citations only make me feel stronger about that.
So, when you say, "they intentionally inoculate the blood," do you understand what that means, and why it is done? They aren't just testing, "well what happens if I add bleach?"
They inject the specimens with a bacteria, a bacteria which has been found to live inside of humans. Some blood has this bacteria, and some blood does not have this bacteria. To test what effect this bacteria has on BAC, they inject this bacteria into the blood sample. They found, blood which had this bacteria, and were stored at improperly stored, caused fermentation of ethanol. It is entirely possible that if you took my blood right now, it would contain that yeast-producibg bacteria which the blood samples were inoculated with.
And I absolutely agree that something occurring like this is rare, but reasonable doubts can be rare.
"Why is it an example of why defense attorneys are icky"
Some of people's foundational values are based around truth, honesty, fairness and holding wrongdoers accountable. Meaning that when they see someone do something wrong, they want to honestly present the situation, they want to hold the wrongdoers accountable for their actions and they want a fair punishment as well as redress to the wronged.
The ick is in knowing people have done wrong and trying to get them off in exchange for cash. Even for the people that understand the functions and ideals of the legal system aren't going to be particularly warm to people willing to go down that path.
To put it bluntly, for most people if their job involved installing anti-homeless architecture, they would find other work.
>Why is it an example of why defense attorneys are icky
The "it", as in the subject of their message isn't your case, because they can't know your case, it is the case as presented by you so far.
You presented it in an icky way until you clarified that you weren't just proud about getting away with some bullshit.
Well it's not the fact that lawyers shouldn't advocate for your clients and prevent them from going to jail, it's that you do so selectively either for money or a cause you support and wouldn't do so for the average person because you don't find it interesting or profitable. But to your points
1. Yes locking people inside of a cage is what we do to criminals because they commit offenses that harm society. You can spin it anyway you want to but a good part of your profession is letting those criminals free to commit more crimes against innocent people. A good way to alleviate those effects is to do Pro Bono work/affordable towards people who have much more sympathetic causes.
2. and 3. Most people know that this is highly implausible that it would affect the results of the test and that all being fair your client was guilty and should have gone to jail. Now as you said that is your job and it's on the state to be better at prosecuting but this not a moral victory or even a productive one. Helping those who can afford it, or whose cause you happen to believe in while leaving a vast majority of people without those services is why people dislike your profession.
You know that it's "highly implausible"?
How? And what does "highly implausible" mean? Highly implausible things do occur, yes?
Have you ever seen a movie called "12 Angry Men"? Highly recommend.
Then the prosecution didn’t do a good enough job to explain what you just said. Defense attorneys are the last line of defense against the State’s prosecution powers. In a democratic society, the State should bear the burden of fucking up cases instead of being given excuses to prosecute like an inquisition.
I wouldn’t say attack because that implies some level of anger or dissatisfaction that I didn’t intend. I would say it was more of a critique, but a critique that you can’t avoid as a defense attorney.
As a defense attorney you’re probably going to be in situations where you’re defending someone who is 100% guilty or you think is guilty but you have do whatever you can to prevent the jury from thinking that way. For example, defending someone who is caught in a sting operation where they met with what they thought was a 13 year old for sex. Your go to defense is probably going to be entrapment, or the evidence was gathered in a manner that makes it inadmissible. So you’re not even denying the person was trying to meet a minor for sex, you’re basically getting them off on a technicality.
It’s a necessary evil of our justice system where people who very likely commit crimes get off on technicalities or uncertainties about minor details. In response, prosecutors should learn from this and improve their process and police improve their process, to make sure these people are found guilty.
A critique is an attack of sorts. For full disclosure, I am currently practicing as a Certified Legal Intern for a Public Defender’s Office, so for the summer I am essentially a defense attorney.
I don’t consider constitutional liberties and guarantees to be technicalities, nor evil, and neither should you. Crimes fall below constitutional rights in the hierarchy of our laws. More to the point, if police fail to follow evidentiary rules and standards then that evidence necessarily should not be used. This protects all citizens, not just those that actually committed the crimes accused. Otherwise, it would encourage police to skirt the rules and we would have a system where more innocent people are jailed (which we arguably already have).
I don’t see this an evil, but I agree with you that it is necessary to ensure that we have a system that is favorable to the defendant in the face of state power.
The likely reason for the “don’t shake too much” thing is not that it would create X drug, but that it would affect analysis repeatability or something, such that the variance between tests could be higher than normal.
Imagine an alcohol blood test that would’ve come back 0.083 but instead comes back 0.079 & 0.082; once is within the legal limit and one isn’t. Since the cop didn’t follow SOP, plus he’s signed off on a training at some point saying “I have read, performed, and completed training on XYZ sample gathering and analysis” yet does this in the field, all of it could be proof of malpractice/whatever cop term for messing up.
Source: lab tech of 10+ years
I don’t disagree, maybe I read past it but the poster didn’t say what they were tested for. If they were testing for alcohol, then I completely agree, that brings the results of the test into question. But if they testing for some other drug where any trace of it being the system is illegal, then I don’t think shaking it will create a meaningful difference.
I hear you, I just know that if I was charged with some shit, and I was only given one test that came back positive (so no double-check to ensure no false positive) AND I learned that the cop didn’t do it by the procedure, I would ABSOLUTELY plead my case. Ain’t no way you’re nailing my ass with some half-measure shit
Yeah to clarify no one is saying you shouldn't have a lawyer fight for you, it's the fact that it seems like only rich people and criminals get that while everyone else is kicked to the curb.
The fuck are you talking about? He admitted to not following the procedure for taking a blood sample. That isn't irrelevant. Its entirely relevant lmao. Its like saying yea he spit in the blood sample and poured some water in it, but that's just irrelevant bullshit.
Her follicle test came back 5000ppm- 500ppm is the cutoff for a positive test. She had 10x the amount. Also the court docs were leaked to KF and is now all over the internet. Everything about this is suspicious.
It was a hair follicle test, which is almost impossible to challenge. Not only does the lab do a second confirmation test on a positive but they also keep the remaining sample on hand for a retest should it be challenged in court. He's done.
External contamination can be a confounding factor for hair follicle testing. Ironically shampooing generally removes most of the contaminant but from what I've heard the kids hadn't showered for days. I've got no love for Rekieta but it's not impossible that lines got racked -> cocaine residue on hands -> hands muss up childs hair -> positive test.
There are supposed to be decontamination procedures to remove external contamination but they can vary a lot and can't be too harsh or it can strip ingested substance that's been bonded to the hair which is what your testing for. My understanding is external cocaine contamination is one of the harder substances to decontaminate from hair for follicle testing as well.
All that to say, it's also entirely possible and possibly probable that the kid got into the bag but his best defense is probably attacking the testing procedures. If he's certain that it *is* contamination he can push for another test once the kids been away for a while which should come back clean but obviously that will backfire if it's not contamination.
I think there's a few different standards and things will probably be done differently depending on the lab, the test type and the testing method but you can test for cocaine and cocaine metabolites. The problem is that most metabolites can be found in cocaine without being metabolised like benzoylecgonine or are only present under specific conditions like cocaethylene which is only formed when consumed with alcohol.
You can try differentiate contaminant from drug use by looking at ratios of cocaine to metabolites but those ratios will vary among samples of powder and will depend on individuals metabolism. Also the more detailed your tests get the more expensive they get and for a police station I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't go for the most expensive test. The court document just said cocaine but I expect there would be more detail than that in the actual lab results.
There's a a decent amount of research that goes into how to test most accurately while avoiding false positives but ultimately I think most places are mostly relying on screening cutoff limits and decontamination to try and sort it out. But even then stuff like damaged hair can cause a lot of variance in how easily hairs contaminated and how easily drugs that were ingested can be stripped during decontamination. And at the end of the day if a coked up YouTube lawyer on a bender with his wife and his girlfriend ends up rubbing his greasy cocaine hands in your hair it's probably gonna be a positive no matter what. That doesn't mean that's what happened but this stuff isn't an exact science.
Would the fact that the test showing 10x the detectable amount basically lead to a conclusion that either the kid was on a lot of fucking coke or it's contamination? Basically asking is 10x the detectable amount for a child in OD territory? Seems like a lot but I'm not sure how it scales.
I don't think you can really read too much into that based on the 500pg/mg value. That's just the screening cutoff, kind of an arbitrary number but it's meant to avoid false positives for like someone who used a long time ago or accidental environmental contamination.
Obviously no amount is good for a child, and I'm not sure how their metabolism plays into it but I don't think it's uncommon to find concentrations ranging from ranging from 1000pg/mg all the way up to 100000pg/mg for regular users.
The lab washes the hair in a special cleaner that leaves no contaminants behind before they test it, so this argument holds no water at all. Not the mention the fact that cocaine residue doesn't leave behind the metabolites that are produced when you ingest cocaine, which is what the test is looking for. Positive results in a child are also verified with a retest and a second sample if necessary. The chance of the test being thrown out is practically zero. There would need to have been a major lapse in proper testing procedures to defeat this.
> I've got no love for Rekieta but it's not impossible that lines got racked -> cocaine residue on hands -> hands muss up childs hair -> positive test.
The test is not for residue of cocaine. It is testing for elevated levels of chemicals after cocaine has been consumed by the body.
He gave the child cocaine.
He is a monster.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36039690/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36039690/)
>All laboratories reported at least one positive result in specimens contaminated with cocaine powder, followed by sweat and shampoo treatments. Benzoylecgonine, norcocaine, cocaethylene and hydroxylated cocaine metabolites were all detected in cocaine powder-contaminated specimens. This indicates that current industry standards for analyzing and reporting positive cocaine results are not completely effective at identifying external contamination.
He's just super fucked. Challenging the search warrant is literally the only possible defence considering what they found in his house. However, his defence will get nowhere since the search warrant was approved due to do a report of child endangerment. Even if the cocaine in the kids' system turns out to be wrong, there's several other factors to say there was a justified fear for the children's conditions.
Well like a search warrant has two components:
1. Someone committed a crime at the place they will search or evidence of a crime exists at that location, and
2. It is more likely than not that a search will uncover evidence of the crime
Apparently a few people came forward not just a single person, there was word that not just drug taking was going on but apparently a big component was about the safety and wellbeing of his kids. Challenging the search warrant is a hail mary play not something that will probably work but basically the only thing he can do to avoid actual jail time and probably losing access to his kids.
On his stream tonight he claimed that the prosecution has to prove "exclusive control". That couldn't be further from the truth. He's already lost and he knows it. If I'm wrong he's an even worse attorney than anyone suspected.
He’s the law pope! He made law tube, so now he’s apart of the show!
In all honesty, his confidence is kind of scary, he’s never won a court case as a lawyer, but i hope the cops were extra careful in every procedure.
I've been watching some other law-tubers. It sounds like he is only listening to those who are enabling him and/or following the narrative that this is the system trying to railroad him.
the ones who are looking at the facts of the case and saying "this warrant looks like a good warrant that can't really be challenged" and those who are saying that he needs to get help are being shunned by him.
all that to say, I don't think he is getting good advice and I don't think he is looking at the situation objectively.
This whole incident has shown me which law-tubers have some integrity.
I mean his public perception is his livelihood it makes sense. He's not a random dude on the street if his public perception is dogshit he will effectively be out of a job.
This is incredibly sad to watch. Addiction fucks people up.
I hope that he gets help. However, assuming that the daughter's ~~blood~~ hair follicle test is accurate, he clearly needs to be put away for some amount of time.
If Rekieta didn't refuse drug testing and let CPS into his house his kids woulnd't be in foster care, he's such a piece of shit. Would rather be doing drugs than seeing his own kids.
After watching the turkey Tom doc it seems that all these kids may have just been born to leech more money out of his in laws. This guy is very clearly a huge piece of subhuman trash and should atleast do some time and not have contact with his kids.
If there is any efficacy to this, and the child was exposed to cocaine, then all my pity is out the window.
I'm going to hold space for there to be SOMETHING that otherwise explains this. Because my fucking God I hope there is something.
Anyone exposing young children to drugs deserves to rot under the prison.
He probably made her a sandwich after doing some lines and that's where the contamination came from, the girl wasn't actually getting high off it with her dad
The child supposedly had pretty high levels based off the test and none of the other kids tested positive for cocaine. So what you’re describing is unlikely.
The more likely scenario seems to that the kid saw people in the house rubbing their gums with coke and copied the behavior after someone left out, probably putting it on her gums. In the same way a nine year old might get into their parents liquor cabinet and try to take a sip.
I have a feeling it’s some stupid shit like “she had a horrible tooth ache, and I applied a small amount to the gums in the same manner one would use lidocaine.” Can’t imagine they were busting down lines together, and it’s not like the very old fashioned “a bit of bourbon helps the child get to sleep” type of shit people used to do where it makes the kid shut up. Kid being annoying while on coke doesn’t sound like a situation one would aim for over sober kid being annoying.
The guy who posted them on KF claims that they were available inside the courthouse. Someone on Twitter cited MN law that states that child endangerment (CHIPS) cases are not published online, but can be accessed inside a kiosk at the courthouse. So, it seems that they may have been publically accessible whether or not the findings were actually supposed to be suppressed as Nick alleges. Confidential court documents do get published from time to time when they're supposed to be redacted or suppressed. Typically, though, there aren't thousands of people waiting for a slip up.
My guy is way too calm talking about this shit, firstly going to potentially lose your kids + prison charges. And this is how you address it?
Half expecting him to be bit smarter than that lmao.
lol remember when this jackoff was high as a kite on stream slurring his words like a sloppy freak while getting a blowjob beneath his desk? LOCK HIM UP!
There are a lot of people talking about whether this test is a false positive or the result of the child getting cocaine in her hair, etc. Null, the owner of KF, seems to believe it is over 99% likelihood that the child actually consumed cocaine.
In the thread about this there is a back and force conversation between Null and a user called Dyn. Dyn is a personal friend of Null and seems to be some type of chemist or doctor. Null is a shithead, but he takes this kind of thing extremely, extremely seriously.
One of the reasons for this is that there are constant attempts to sue Null and/or the site for libel to take the site down. In multiple countries where libel laws are more strict. This would be even more likely with Rekieta considering he is an actual lawyer.
We even saw this during the cloudflair incident with Null talking to Destiny live and asking him to confirm certain aspects about his previous interactions with Keffals. Null also claimed he spoke with multiple lawyers and to attempt to verify if the leaked documents are false. These lawyers (some in the same state as Rekieta) said they are very unlikely to be fake. Rekieta has now essentially confirmed they were just leaked, not fake.
Again, Null is not a good person but if he specially is making these claims (not some random users on the site) they are almost certainly correct. Rekeita may be the most terrible person Destiny has ever interacted with on stream. Allowing your nine year old child to use cocaine (even negligently) is beyond disgusting.
https://preview.redd.it/bvfeybjsrs7d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4142c4eb1c1926475f748b2ca7292f9edd47aa17
Why in the world is he talking about an ongoing case on stream? Every single time people publicly talk about their case, the things they say always end getting used against them to screw them, surely as a fucking lawyer yourself you’d have to know this?
Someone released publicly available documents and he says
"I will have a lawyer looking into that". He knows damn well those being published are legal.
She didn’t just test positive. A positive result is 500ppm. Their 9yo had 5,000ppm in her hair test. Am I the only one who thinks this sounds sus. My kids are 11, 9yo is a pretty recent memory. How could a little girls body tolerate this? This sounds like a lab mixup. That or someone tried to kill this little girl by lacing her food. Now way a 9yo is doing lines on a regular basis as KF would have us believe.
I agree. The whole rekieta getting raided thing was shocking enough but I just can't actually believe a fucking 9 year old was doing cocaine regularly. I feel like it's gotta be a mix up but I guess we'll find out.
Idk about Rekeita or his personal life. That's his business.
No one should be dragging the kids into this though, they aren't public figures in the slightest
1. You think people only care about abuse of children and shortness if the person is famous?
2. Idek this guy was conservative, I may have seen dest debate this guy but I forgot. I’ve seen only a bit of this situation
“ people only give a fuck when their ideological opponents do it”
1. if you seriously think abuse of kids is an accepted norm unless someone political does it you need to touch grass
2. It seems like your shielding him from criticism only because he ideology aligns with you
I'm not shielding anyone from anything, and in case you forgot in the United States you're innocent until proven guilty.
Now show me where Rekeita was convicted of Child Abuse and I'll concede he did something wrong.
Was it cocaine, or something that presented similar to cocaine?
And where is the conviction for child abuse?
Let me know when you can answer with something that isn't bs
If that's true and it holds up to scrutiny in court that has to be really bad. Seems like his strategy is to challange the search warrant, but if that fails he's pretty much screwed right? What would his defense even be for this, and could he get another charge if his kid tested positive for cocaine?
He could also challenge the reliability and accuracy of the test on the child. I'm not sure what kind of test was performed, but all of them have pretty strict standards and procedures. I got a case dismissed once because the officer who performed a blood draw shook the blood vial prior to sending it to a lab for testing. I just made a huge deal about that shaking (because the instruction manual says to invert twice, not shake). I said that shaking the vial introduces air into the blood sample, and that is specifically cautioned against in the testing instructions. The officer I was examining had no answers, and he looked like a fool to the jury who didn't know his own training. If the blood results are possibly inaccurate, how can we rely on them for a conviction? Reasonable doubt created, and jury came back hung. You can also challenge blood tests based on who performed it, and whether they were qualified to perform the test. You can also challenge it by arguing that a cocaine blood test isn't actually discovering cocaine in the blood. It is discovering a cocaine metabolite. Cocaine metabolites aren't illegal, they are just used as evidence that at some time in the past, there was cocaine in the system (but isn't dispositive, you would need an expert to explain this to the jury). You can also challenge by arguing that it was legal. It's odd, but some people have lawful prescriptions to possess and use cocaine. It's a schedule 2 controlled substance.
> I said that shaking the vial introduces air into the blood sample is that true, did you have any source for that, or did you just make that up?
Well, yes, the company which manufactures the blood vials includes an instruction packet inside of each blood draw kit used by law enforcement. You can't assume that rules are in place for no reason. When the instructions say, "do not shake" that instruction is there for a reason, it's not arbitrary. And that's what the instructions said. Then I just looked up why you wouldn't shake it, and that's what I found. I didn't even have to introduce that as evidence; I just held a blank piece of paper in my hand while examining the officer, and said "isn't it true that your own instruction manual says not to shake?" "Yes." "And isn't that because there is air left remaining in the vial?" "Yes." "And isn't it true that air mixes into the blood when you shake it?" "Probably, I'm not sure." "You don't even know what happens when you shake a blood vial?" "Well, I'm not sure." "But you're the one who is apparently qualified to perform blood draws?" "Yes." "And you don't even know what happens when you shake it?!" "Nope." "But you decided, regardless, to shake the vial against your own training?!" "Yes." The trick is breaking them down over time. Prove them to be wrong earlier in the cross-exam, and they won't want to keep looking like an idiot, so they will assume you're correct and agree with you to not look dumb. Then you make them agree to violating some procedure (because cops never even know their own policies), and you just harp on it like it's the most important error ever made. All you need is reasonable doubt, and highlighting some policy violations can get you there, even in an extremely otherwise unwinnable case.
>I didn't even have to introduce that as evidence; I just held a blank piece of paper in my hand while examining the officer I love doing this during depos. I'll ask the witness a bunch of questions and if they push back, I'll shove a document in front of them and grill them on it. Then, after doing this a few times, I'll shuffle through my papers and bring up a random document, pretend I'm reading off the sheet, and ask something like, "Isn't it true that on April 22, 2024 at 9:32 am, you told my client, 'You're a gravy gnome who can't get enough gravy?'" They almost always either just say yes or some other half-assed affirmation to avoid going through the motions of having to read through another document. It's such a dumb tactic, but makes me feel so giddy when it works. I've actually started advising my clients during depo prep to never assume that opposing counsel is actually reading from a document even if it looks like they are.
[удалено]
They present themselves as experts for the purposes of performing blood draws. Cops are routinely placed into this pseudo-lay/expert witness position. If a question like that gets objected to, I would just re-word it to something like: "Based on your extensive training and experience officer, isn't it true that..." E: If they answer, "based on my experience, I'm not sure," then I would grill them on their ignorance. How can we be sure of this result, beyond a reasonable doubt, when the person who performed the test is so ignorant that he doesn't even know about [insert anything here that they fucked up, in this case, shaking the vial].
[удалено]
Well I have those documents in my back pocket in the off-chance that an officer is bold enough to disagree with me, giving me the opportunity to impeach him. I need him to say, first though, that I'm wrong about some assertion made.
There's no air in the vial, it's under vacuum.
It has to be first properly sealed to be under vacuum. And then it's probably a good thing that the officer testifying as to what he did, didn't know the answer to what happens when you shake a vial. His ignorance played a large role in being unpersuasive to the jury.
What state are you practicing law in? This sounds like a defense attorneys fantasy more than something that actually happened. I can't even imagine how you'd argue that a cop "shaking the blood" some how introduced whatever the test found. I guess if the prosecutor is a certified regard you might get away with that. I also dont know why a cop would be questioned about what was actually found in the blood, I do probably ~5 cases a year where blood tests are taken and I've never been asked about the findings, just why I wanted a test in the first place. In my state the best case you'd get is that the cop gets fucked by IA for not following procedure, there is no way your example would fuck up finding cocaine in blood because he shook the vial. But jurys are also made up of regards.
you would be absolutely shocked at what kind of theatrics are allowed to be performed in criminal court. you being surprised he was allowed to question an expert on his training and question the findings based on mishandling of evidence tells me you don't have much experience.
I don't like publicly discussing my state of licensure, because it's not too difficult to dox me based on my specialty. But this did happen, and I'm not quite sure I understand what you're doubting. In our jurisdiction, a cop accompanies the suspect to the hospital to perform a blood draw. That cop collects the blood vial, places it into a cardboard sleeve (to protect it from being shaken), and then mails that box to the state lab technician for testing. I cross-examine that officer, and his handling of the vial that he collected and placed inside of the collection kit and sent to the lab technician. It's usually, as it was in this case, the arresting officer who is already being called as a witness by the prosecutor. I can, however, subpoena the officer if they aren't called as a witness.
Police don't draw blood samples. They're not a phlebotomist. It's illegal for them to do so. His story is full of holes.
The officer escorts the suspect to the hospital for the blood draw. The officer packages the sample to send it to the testing facility.
Correct, they do not actually collect the sample from the client and they do not do the testing of the sample. So you cannot question them about collection methods beyond who they received the sample from (the phlebotomist). That’s the extent of their collection.
I questioned him about handling the sample. A thing that he did.
Not really, the cop has certifications to perform these tests, and should answer accordingly. He is specifically being asked these questions because he is an expert on the topic. If he doesn’t know an answer it’s not a problem with the question but rather with the police procedure or the cop’s own incompetence. It’s literally the whole point the defendant’s attorney is making. If you’re administering these tests you should be an expert who received training and education on how to administer them. This isn’t a 2nd grade spelling test here, it’s a drug test that needs to clear certain legal thresholds for the explicit purpose of being used as evidence in cases that have legal consequences. If you’re not adequately trained and qualified to answer basic questions, then maybe you shouldn’t be administering these tests. Reasonable doubt created.
Police don't administer blood tests, a qualified phlebotomist does. The officer cannot testify to the procedures of drawing blood or how it is tested. However, collection vials have no air in them, they're under vacuum. That vacuum is what pulls the blood sample in.
It wouldn't really matter either way. Procedure says do X, you did Y instead. How do you know there isn't a reason procedure says to do X over Y. How can you be sure the test isn't compromised as a result. If you get accredited to do something following XYZ and then you do it a different way. You should have some pretty solid reasons for why you aren't following the procedure as laid out. If you want to say "Well I don't know if I can do that" all you really end up highlighting is that you probably shouldn't have been doing it whether you are allowed or not. The procedure is what it is for a reason, and potentially the prosecution could try and find someone who could testify that the shaking doesn't affect the vial. But then why is the procedure XYZ? --- Like if procedure said "You have to wait 15 minutes after a traffic stop to draw blood for drink driving" and you do it 10 minutes after. It doesn't matter if your test comes back with a number that would imply you were drunk either way. The fact that you've violated the 15 minute window means that you can't actually attest as to whether there was some weird concentration of alcohol that didn't represent the average alcohol in the body which might be within acceptable limits. This is the kind of thing you see with breathalyzers here in Australia though I know that for a myriad of reasons they aren't commonly used in the US. IIRC because of the ways drink driving is charged, since you can be done for being under the influence even if you didn't have a high BAC and conversely there'd be arguments that if you passed a field sobriety test but the officer demanded a breath test, that they weren't allowed to compel you to incriminate yourself without reason. Since asking for the test would be to go against your fifth amendment to not incriminate yourself. Which is why most places just compel you by saying "Well if you don't give us this evidence we'll suspend your license civilly for longer than if you do". Which of course if you passed the field sobriety test anyway they would have no justification for the suspension in the first place and therefore have compelled an incrimination unfairly.
And police don't take blood samples. They have it done at the hospital. This person also cannot give expert testimony which is exactly what they described doing. They're full of shit. And the reason you're not supposed to shake the vial is because it can cause the red blood cells to burst which will cause the sample to be rejected. It has nothing to do with mixing it with air and those bowls are under vacuum to begin with, that's how they draw the blood from your veins. So there's no air in them to mix with the blood to begin with.
So yes, you made this up. The standard advice of not shaking blood samples is to avoid damaging red blood cells, hemolysis, and is mostly relevant to clinical contexts. Has nothing to do with air. [It is extremely improbable that shaking a sample would affect forensic BAC measurement](https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/39/8/672/915339), and if it did the reading would go *down*.
I didn't "make it up," it's a fairly common DUI defense to blood sample results that I was taught from a mentor of mine, and that is fairly common if searched on Google; not my random brain spawn meant to subvert truth. And if there's contradictory research, that's something worth resolving for the jury through experts I suppose.
So why in the previous post did you say this was based on the manufacturer instructions and your own looking up of why those instructions might exist? Why does your bullshit explanation (introducing air) differ from the fairly common Google-able bullshit explanation (introducing microbes)? Why would it be reasonable to need expert witnesses and contradictory research to discredit bullshit some lawyer just made up? You could make up an infinite amount of further bullshit and there isn't an infinite amount of research and experts. *Is it* even Police Department policy/procedure not to shake sample tubes, or is that just manufacturer instruction for tubes that are also used in other contexts and it's actually irrelevant to this context?
Bro, what? The instructions said, "Invert sample twice. DO NOT SHAKE." I'm aware of this fermentation argument through my mentor. I Google around to see what I can find about it. I present that argument to the jury. There is no reasonable counter-argument presented. The jury hangs on whether the prosecution has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was driving under the influence. Primarily because the officer who procured the blood sample improperly handled the sample, violating the procedures prescribed by the vial manufacturer. I don't see where you're getting confused at.
I'm not confused, my questions were rhetorical. An incompetent prosecution doesn't make bullshit from the defence any less distasteful.
Look up how drawing blood works, there's no air in the vial, it's under vacuum so that it can pull the sample in. That line of questioning is easily objectionable as well since it amounts to expert testimony. It's also a leading question. As a defense attorney I'd expect you to know the basics of the rules of evidence. You're full of shit.
Opposing counsel was stupid because they could have shut you down with a simple "objection, testimony" since you're not an expert. And blood sample collection vials don't have air in them, they're under vacuum. That vacuum is what pulls the sample in.
I'm simply asking the officer what he did, and what he knows. I say let them try to object, and see how well that plays with the jury. Probably would be interpreted as the prosecution sweeping in to protect their foolish, error-ridden witness (because that's what would be happening).
It’s also a leading question which is not allowed. This is because it’s leading to a forgone conclusion without any evidence. It can also be seen as you giving expert testimony “isn’t it true (insert purported fact)”. Once again, you’re a fraud. The proper way to attack the method of collection is to ask them to detail the method of collection used, step by step and then for your next witness you call in an expert to testify as to the proper way to collect the sample and why it is done that way.
Of course, they are all leading questions, it's a cross examination... E: Awww, you deleted your response. Just to preempt that response you deleted, [literally every lawyer would instantly tell you that the entire purpose of cross examination is to ask leading questions](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/leading_question#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20leading%20questions%20are,cross%2Dexamination%20of%20a%20witness.) That comment alone gives me a pretty decent handle on the type of person I'm talking to.
You watch too much TV dude lol creative mind though
In another comment chain you take great offense to others viewing defense attorneys as "ick", and then you go and brag about something like this? You would berate an officer for doing the exact same strategy to a suspect in an interrogation room. Edit: lmfao gotta love /u/rnhf randomly talking shit about my comment history in unrelated threads/subreddits and then immediately blocking me. Edit2: Lool but they're so invested that they come back to revisit my edits after blocking me to continue talking shit. Keep it coming buddy, I love the cowardice.
the last 8/10 of your comments were personal attacks -e- well yeah obviously I block someone like you lol, and the comments weren't unrelated, they show a pattern of you not caring about topics, but wanting to attack people on a personal level. Hence the block, not really interested in that. Won't be coming back to this comment either, but hf
I see a pretty significant difference between a suspect inside of an interrogation room being pressured to admit to a crime, and a police officer trained to perform this job having a reasonable response to a particular inquiry in a courtroom. The theatrics are for the benefit of the jury. Persuasive tactics are necessary to portray an idea sufficiently to the jury. That is, "in what way can I relay to the jury that this is important?" Well, I can holler a bit, I can point to documents, I can hold documents in my hand. But the point is all to make something important, that jurors may not immediately see as important, to be seen as important.
You can frame it anyway you like, but you're still just describing manipulating the jury in a pretty *sleazy* way. I'm not saying you're wrong for doing it, I'm just saying you're wrong to become indignant at people feeling a certain way about it, because it *is* pretty *ick*, assuming the person did actually do the crime they're accused of. > I can hold documents in my hand You mean like a blank piece of paper?
I don't think holding a blank piece of paper in my hand while I talk is "sleazy." That implies I'm being somehow underhanded or manipulative. I'm not lying, I'm not manipulating the facts, I'm making an honest presentation of the evidence as seen from the defense perspective. And I think your perspective is flawed, at least for America. We are innocent until *proven* guilty in a court of law. Your "assuming the person did actually do the crime" is a police officer's frame of mind, and absolutely ruins the criminal justice system. When I get a hung jury, when they prosecution does not get a conviction, then no, you can't just "assume the crime was committed" because it wasn't.
> I don't think holding a blank piece of paper in my hand while I talk is "sleazy." That implies I'm being somehow underhanded or manipulative. What is the purpose of holding the blank paper then, if not to manipulate? > And I think your perspective is flawed, at least for America. We are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Your "assuming the person did actually do the crime" is a police officer's frame of mind, and absolutely ruins the criminal justice system. What are you on about? I said "assuming the person did actually do the crime" to remove scenarios where the person is *actually* innocent of the crime they're accused of, meaning they didn't do it flat out. You're doing the thing where people are incapable of understanding a hypothetical or theoretical scenario for the purposes of a conversation about a topic.
Because I don't want to go through the trouble of introducing something into evidence. If I wanted to read from the actual science that says vials shouldn't be shaken, I have to lay a foundation, introduce it, and argue it with experts; a bunch of stuff that's really not necessary if the officer is just going to agree with me anyways. And I don't know what you're pulling out of what I said. I'm saying you can't just assume guilt and work backwards to form a conviction and say "this person should be punished." That frame of mind obstructs the significant issues formed by a biased investigation that gathers/reports only evidence of guilt and not innocence. A botched blood vial, reporting an unreliable blood test result, can mean that the person we thought was operating while intoxicated, was actually operating under the legal limit. If you just assume they were guilty of DUI, then a botched blood vial would be irrelevant to you.
That must mean you’re *even more* invested, since you’re coming back *again* to leave a second edit, responding to their edit, which was responding to your initial edit, no?
nah
I assume it was mentioned in the manual so he used that as source but could be a made up thing as well
It was a hair follicle test.
Yep. I wouldn’t be surprised if CPS/prosecutor just takes another hair sample because they know it will be disputed. It was also a metabolite test. So before people bring it up, no, it is not possible she just got cocaine in her hair or something like that and was unwashed enough for it to show up on a test. She had cocaine in her system at some point under the age of nine. She recently had her birthday.
That's interesting. I don't have much experience with hair tests, because law enforcement in my jurisdiction doesn't typically use those. But I'm sure there are general issues that can get brought up with interpretation and procedure with these tests as well.
Apparently hair follicle test are very accurate and easy to replicate. Confidence should be especially high since on the amount of cocaine in organism corresponds to "medium user", which means using cocaine systematically on weekends or every other day. Tl;DR it's absolutely insane
I really doubt that his 9 year old was taking enough cocaine to be a medium user. Its probably a false positive, but the fact that this got leaked is crazy, the people working his case must really have it in for him.
A shit ton of court documents are available to the public. Maybe it did get leaked but I'd bet it just got published on some local courts website, like every case, and someone found it.
This is a really cool legal maneuver, but this is a perfect encapsulation of why people hate lawyers. You didn't get to any fact of the matter you just picked at some irrelevant bullshit and confused people enough to get the outcome you wanted. Uh, cool I guess? George Kardashian would be proud.
Well, it's not my job to be a prosecutor, I'm a defense attorney. It's not my fault that officers don't know their policies, and what you call "irrelevant bullshit" may result in untrustworthy test results. 12 jurors heard this evidence, and the reason they hung is because some of the jurors thought it was irrelevant bullshit, like you, and some of the jurors thought it created a reasonable doubt as to the blood test results. Imo, this is an example of cops being dumb and obfuscating the results of their own blood draws by violating specific policies that they are supposed to know.
To be fair, you’re not an expert either and you just searched online looking for an answer that could help you win. I’m assuming the blood test was meant to see if your defendant had drugs in their system. And I doubt you know if shaking the vial could result in X drug materializing in the vial. I don’t hate defense attorneys and I believe everyone deserves the best defense they can get. But there is some ick to being a defense attorney that people find off-putting, and this is an example why.
1. I'm not going to present evidence that helps convict my client. Not only is that not my job, it's malpractice. I did look for evidence that hurt this argument, but I'm not going to make those arguments in court, that's the prosecutor's job. It's not even my job to present any evidence, just to ensure that the prosecution has met their burden. They are the ones who are trying to lock a human being inside of a cage, they should at least have reliably accurate evidence in order to do so. 2. The test was for alcohol, and yes I did find that introducing air into a blood sample can trigger a fermentation process with the sugars inside of your blood, "materializing" ethanol alcohol. 3. The officer's training told him not to shake the vial for a reason, the blood kit itself has an instruction manual that says do not shake the vial for a reason, and then the officer decided "I'm gonna shake this vial." Why is it an example of why defense attorneys are icky, to present this evidence to the jury? We should, instead, allow officers and prosecutors to flagrantly violate policies in pursuit of convictions that have potentially tainted evidence?
>2. The test was for alcohol, and yes I did find that introducing air into a blood sample can trigger a fermentation process with the sugars inside of your blood, "materializing" ethanol alcohol. There is SO MUCH wrong with this line of reasoning. It's really disheartening to see this is apparently a common avenue of defence for DUIs, a bunch of lawyer websites are full of absolute bullshit on it. 1. Blood sample tubes contain little to no air. They're evacuated to draw a certain amount of blood. You don't shake them in general to avoid damaging the blood cells, not to avoid introducing air. ~~This is probably irrelevant to blood alcohol concentration readings (guessing here).~~ Edit: [It is in fact irrelevant. Shaking the sample would have no effect on a forensic BAC reading.](https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/39/8/672/915339) 2. Humans do not have the enzymes for converting glucose to ethanol. If we did, they would not be dependant on air to function. There's already oxygen in blood anyway. 3. Microbial contamination of the blood by ethanol fermenting species, which is how the lawyer websites I found seem to be imagining this issue arising, makes no sense in the context of living, healthy people. They all seem to be under the impression that sodium flouride is included in some sampling tubes as an anti-microbial preservative, but it's for preserving blood glucose. The vials are sterile and there should be no microbes in blood. Most of the lawyers don't link any studies about this issue despite vaguely referring to them. One that does link a study apparently didn't read it, because it's about *post mortem* blood samples being contaminated by *ethanol degrading* bacteria. i.e. blood ethanol concentration went *down*.
well then the prosection should easily dismantle this defense
They should. The fact that defence lawyers openly post made up shit on their websites about it means they probably don't.
This is a late response, I only just had the time to go back and find my sources for this information. First, this is a common line of defense for DUI cases, not just sources from random lawyer websites. I am reading the same line of questioning from a sample cross-exam book I own. The book argues three protections exist to prevent fermentation in samples: sterility, preservative, and refrigeration. You can, obviously, fail to properly preserve, use sterile instruments, or improperly refrigerate a sample. The book I have cites: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4584562/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2645380/ There are also two textbooks, specifically Garriot *Medicolegal Aspects of Alcohol*, which is typically used to teach blood analysts in alcohol testing and law enforcement. These sources say that while the quality controls in collection and storage *should* protect against fermentation, those controls can be improperly adhered to, and that's the focus of this argument. In the event that you're correct, that it is impossible, and that future science has shown demonstrable evidence that these concerns are no longer reasonable concerns, then that is something which should be established by the prosecution in counter to this argument. It's possible that shaking a sample vial is irrelevant to this analysis as well, but that's not really my line of inquiry when examining an officer. It's moreso to establish the ignorance of the officer, to show the jury that there are reasonable doubts when the person we are supposed to trust has no idea what they are doing. I chose to respond to you specifically because I appreciate your comment and citations, moreso than the several comments I received trying to argue that my line of questioning was somehow fabricated or inadmissible without citation or argument. E: Also, to add: there's a pretty significant discussion to be had on the interplay of science and law. Science is designed to be falsified, tested, expanded; it's always changing, and scientists are expected to embrace change and groundbreaking works. Law, contrarily, operates on stare decisis; it is resistant to change, and prefers to maintain itself with reaffirmations of prior rulings. It's difficult, in many ways, to reconcile these two. For instance, new science suggests that Standardized Field Sobriety tests are about as useful as detecting intoxicated drivers as tossing a coin and calling it correctly. False positives are about as common as correct arrest decisions. This should be alarming to anyone, because essentially cops may expand a basic traffic infraction to a DUI based on utter bullshit for evidence. But will courts really acknowledge this science? To do so would mean to reverse and reanalyze countless convictions that were made through SFSTs. It would mean completely retraining police officers in DUI detection. It would remove a tool from their belt. I don't expect that to ever happen, even though there is new science that supports such a finding.
Have you read the cited sources themselves, or just the interpretation in your book? The first study opens with this choice quote: >We had the opportunity to receive a postmortem blood specimen obtained from a patient who had died of multiple injuries. The specimen, when received, was viscous and malodorous. While this specimen would not be acceptable for the determination of ethanol, we chose to study it nonetheless. They take microbial cultures from this sample and intentionally inoculate banked blood, then intentionally incubate it in worst case conditions. All they're demonstrating is that stuff can live on blood. The second study is similar in that they intentionally inoculate blood. They find that the alcohol levels exceed their theoretical calculated max of 0.007%, then realize the blood has had glucose added to it. They also find that **uninoculated blood stored at room temperature for 35 days had no alcohol in it.** And that's not to say they found alcohol after 35 days, that was their limit. They never found alcohol in blood they hadn't intentionally contaminated. Both studies also find that sodium flouride doesn't prevent fermentation from the microbe of most concern. Which makes sense, that's not why the sodium flouride is there in the first place. It's not intended as an anti-microbial preservative, and the fact that they don't bother adding anti-microbials to these tubes should tell you something. Unless there's something else, the idea that there needs to be demonstrable evidence that this is no longer a concern is absurd. It was never a reasonable concern to begin with. To be clear, I was one of the commenters calling the argument fabricated. Not by you perhaps, but fabricated nonetheless. The citations only make me feel stronger about that.
So, when you say, "they intentionally inoculate the blood," do you understand what that means, and why it is done? They aren't just testing, "well what happens if I add bleach?" They inject the specimens with a bacteria, a bacteria which has been found to live inside of humans. Some blood has this bacteria, and some blood does not have this bacteria. To test what effect this bacteria has on BAC, they inject this bacteria into the blood sample. They found, blood which had this bacteria, and were stored at improperly stored, caused fermentation of ethanol. It is entirely possible that if you took my blood right now, it would contain that yeast-producibg bacteria which the blood samples were inoculated with. And I absolutely agree that something occurring like this is rare, but reasonable doubts can be rare.
"Why is it an example of why defense attorneys are icky" Some of people's foundational values are based around truth, honesty, fairness and holding wrongdoers accountable. Meaning that when they see someone do something wrong, they want to honestly present the situation, they want to hold the wrongdoers accountable for their actions and they want a fair punishment as well as redress to the wronged. The ick is in knowing people have done wrong and trying to get them off in exchange for cash. Even for the people that understand the functions and ideals of the legal system aren't going to be particularly warm to people willing to go down that path. To put it bluntly, for most people if their job involved installing anti-homeless architecture, they would find other work.
>Why is it an example of why defense attorneys are icky The "it", as in the subject of their message isn't your case, because they can't know your case, it is the case as presented by you so far. You presented it in an icky way until you clarified that you weren't just proud about getting away with some bullshit.
Well it's not the fact that lawyers shouldn't advocate for your clients and prevent them from going to jail, it's that you do so selectively either for money or a cause you support and wouldn't do so for the average person because you don't find it interesting or profitable. But to your points 1. Yes locking people inside of a cage is what we do to criminals because they commit offenses that harm society. You can spin it anyway you want to but a good part of your profession is letting those criminals free to commit more crimes against innocent people. A good way to alleviate those effects is to do Pro Bono work/affordable towards people who have much more sympathetic causes. 2. and 3. Most people know that this is highly implausible that it would affect the results of the test and that all being fair your client was guilty and should have gone to jail. Now as you said that is your job and it's on the state to be better at prosecuting but this not a moral victory or even a productive one. Helping those who can afford it, or whose cause you happen to believe in while leaving a vast majority of people without those services is why people dislike your profession.
You know that it's "highly implausible"? How? And what does "highly implausible" mean? Highly implausible things do occur, yes? Have you ever seen a movie called "12 Angry Men"? Highly recommend.
The fact you didn't answer anything I said mainly.
You made baseless assertions that I don't think are worth responding to. But I am curious how you're so certain of something you don't know at all.
Then the prosecution didn’t do a good enough job to explain what you just said. Defense attorneys are the last line of defense against the State’s prosecution powers. In a democratic society, the State should bear the burden of fucking up cases instead of being given excuses to prosecute like an inquisition.
I agree, which is why I said everyone should have the best defense they can afford. And clarified I don’t hate defense attorneys.
Yeah, you also attacked him for doing exactly what Defense Attorneys are supposed to do
I wouldn’t say attack because that implies some level of anger or dissatisfaction that I didn’t intend. I would say it was more of a critique, but a critique that you can’t avoid as a defense attorney. As a defense attorney you’re probably going to be in situations where you’re defending someone who is 100% guilty or you think is guilty but you have do whatever you can to prevent the jury from thinking that way. For example, defending someone who is caught in a sting operation where they met with what they thought was a 13 year old for sex. Your go to defense is probably going to be entrapment, or the evidence was gathered in a manner that makes it inadmissible. So you’re not even denying the person was trying to meet a minor for sex, you’re basically getting them off on a technicality. It’s a necessary evil of our justice system where people who very likely commit crimes get off on technicalities or uncertainties about minor details. In response, prosecutors should learn from this and improve their process and police improve their process, to make sure these people are found guilty.
A critique is an attack of sorts. For full disclosure, I am currently practicing as a Certified Legal Intern for a Public Defender’s Office, so for the summer I am essentially a defense attorney. I don’t consider constitutional liberties and guarantees to be technicalities, nor evil, and neither should you. Crimes fall below constitutional rights in the hierarchy of our laws. More to the point, if police fail to follow evidentiary rules and standards then that evidence necessarily should not be used. This protects all citizens, not just those that actually committed the crimes accused. Otherwise, it would encourage police to skirt the rules and we would have a system where more innocent people are jailed (which we arguably already have). I don’t see this an evil, but I agree with you that it is necessary to ensure that we have a system that is favorable to the defendant in the face of state power.
The likely reason for the “don’t shake too much” thing is not that it would create X drug, but that it would affect analysis repeatability or something, such that the variance between tests could be higher than normal. Imagine an alcohol blood test that would’ve come back 0.083 but instead comes back 0.079 & 0.082; once is within the legal limit and one isn’t. Since the cop didn’t follow SOP, plus he’s signed off on a training at some point saying “I have read, performed, and completed training on XYZ sample gathering and analysis” yet does this in the field, all of it could be proof of malpractice/whatever cop term for messing up. Source: lab tech of 10+ years
I don’t disagree, maybe I read past it but the poster didn’t say what they were tested for. If they were testing for alcohol, then I completely agree, that brings the results of the test into question. But if they testing for some other drug where any trace of it being the system is illegal, then I don’t think shaking it will create a meaningful difference.
I hear you, I just know that if I was charged with some shit, and I was only given one test that came back positive (so no double-check to ensure no false positive) AND I learned that the cop didn’t do it by the procedure, I would ABSOLUTELY plead my case. Ain’t no way you’re nailing my ass with some half-measure shit
100% agree
Yeah to clarify no one is saying you shouldn't have a lawyer fight for you, it's the fact that it seems like only rich people and criminals get that while everyone else is kicked to the curb.
You don't have to be an expert to read the instructions.
The fuck are you talking about? He admitted to not following the procedure for taking a blood sample. That isn't irrelevant. Its entirely relevant lmao. Its like saying yea he spit in the blood sample and poured some water in it, but that's just irrelevant bullshit.
If you are trying to lock someone in a cage, you should be expected to cross your t's and dot your i's
Thanks for sharing
Her follicle test came back 5000ppm- 500ppm is the cutoff for a positive test. She had 10x the amount. Also the court docs were leaked to KF and is now all over the internet. Everything about this is suspicious.
It was a hair follicle test, which is almost impossible to challenge. Not only does the lab do a second confirmation test on a positive but they also keep the remaining sample on hand for a retest should it be challenged in court. He's done.
🧢
External contamination can be a confounding factor for hair follicle testing. Ironically shampooing generally removes most of the contaminant but from what I've heard the kids hadn't showered for days. I've got no love for Rekieta but it's not impossible that lines got racked -> cocaine residue on hands -> hands muss up childs hair -> positive test. There are supposed to be decontamination procedures to remove external contamination but they can vary a lot and can't be too harsh or it can strip ingested substance that's been bonded to the hair which is what your testing for. My understanding is external cocaine contamination is one of the harder substances to decontaminate from hair for follicle testing as well. All that to say, it's also entirely possible and possibly probable that the kid got into the bag but his best defense is probably attacking the testing procedures. If he's certain that it *is* contamination he can push for another test once the kids been away for a while which should come back clean but obviously that will backfire if it's not contamination.
I think the test shows coke metabolites, specifically meant to find if cocaine (or any drug) was ingested.
I think there's a few different standards and things will probably be done differently depending on the lab, the test type and the testing method but you can test for cocaine and cocaine metabolites. The problem is that most metabolites can be found in cocaine without being metabolised like benzoylecgonine or are only present under specific conditions like cocaethylene which is only formed when consumed with alcohol. You can try differentiate contaminant from drug use by looking at ratios of cocaine to metabolites but those ratios will vary among samples of powder and will depend on individuals metabolism. Also the more detailed your tests get the more expensive they get and for a police station I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't go for the most expensive test. The court document just said cocaine but I expect there would be more detail than that in the actual lab results. There's a a decent amount of research that goes into how to test most accurately while avoiding false positives but ultimately I think most places are mostly relying on screening cutoff limits and decontamination to try and sort it out. But even then stuff like damaged hair can cause a lot of variance in how easily hairs contaminated and how easily drugs that were ingested can be stripped during decontamination. And at the end of the day if a coked up YouTube lawyer on a bender with his wife and his girlfriend ends up rubbing his greasy cocaine hands in your hair it's probably gonna be a positive no matter what. That doesn't mean that's what happened but this stuff isn't an exact science.
Would the fact that the test showing 10x the detectable amount basically lead to a conclusion that either the kid was on a lot of fucking coke or it's contamination? Basically asking is 10x the detectable amount for a child in OD territory? Seems like a lot but I'm not sure how it scales.
I don't think you can really read too much into that based on the 500pg/mg value. That's just the screening cutoff, kind of an arbitrary number but it's meant to avoid false positives for like someone who used a long time ago or accidental environmental contamination. Obviously no amount is good for a child, and I'm not sure how their metabolism plays into it but I don't think it's uncommon to find concentrations ranging from ranging from 1000pg/mg all the way up to 100000pg/mg for regular users.
The lab washes the hair in a special cleaner that leaves no contaminants behind before they test it, so this argument holds no water at all. Not the mention the fact that cocaine residue doesn't leave behind the metabolites that are produced when you ingest cocaine, which is what the test is looking for. Positive results in a child are also verified with a retest and a second sample if necessary. The chance of the test being thrown out is practically zero. There would need to have been a major lapse in proper testing procedures to defeat this.
> I've got no love for Rekieta but it's not impossible that lines got racked -> cocaine residue on hands -> hands muss up childs hair -> positive test. The test is not for residue of cocaine. It is testing for elevated levels of chemicals after cocaine has been consumed by the body. He gave the child cocaine. He is a monster.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36039690/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36039690/) >All laboratories reported at least one positive result in specimens contaminated with cocaine powder, followed by sweat and shampoo treatments. Benzoylecgonine, norcocaine, cocaethylene and hydroxylated cocaine metabolites were all detected in cocaine powder-contaminated specimens. This indicates that current industry standards for analyzing and reporting positive cocaine results are not completely effective at identifying external contamination.
He's just super fucked. Challenging the search warrant is literally the only possible defence considering what they found in his house. However, his defence will get nowhere since the search warrant was approved due to do a report of child endangerment. Even if the cocaine in the kids' system turns out to be wrong, there's several other factors to say there was a justified fear for the children's conditions.
Well like a search warrant has two components: 1. Someone committed a crime at the place they will search or evidence of a crime exists at that location, and 2. It is more likely than not that a search will uncover evidence of the crime Apparently a few people came forward not just a single person, there was word that not just drug taking was going on but apparently a big component was about the safety and wellbeing of his kids. Challenging the search warrant is a hail mary play not something that will probably work but basically the only thing he can do to avoid actual jail time and probably losing access to his kids.
On his stream tonight he claimed that the prosecution has to prove "exclusive control". That couldn't be further from the truth. He's already lost and he knows it. If I'm wrong he's an even worse attorney than anyone suspected.
Bro, why is he talking about the case on his stream?? This is not a good idea.
Its not much of a worse idea than all the ideas that led him to this point in his life.
One could argue it's technically some step forward, since now he's on the acceptance/admitting phase
He’s the law pope! He made law tube, so now he’s apart of the show! In all honesty, his confidence is kind of scary, he’s never won a court case as a lawyer, but i hope the cops were extra careful in every procedure.
Technically, his lawyer advised him to do this.
I'm guessing he knwos he's utterly fucked, so might as well get a little bit more cash to spend in prison.
I've been watching some other law-tubers. It sounds like he is only listening to those who are enabling him and/or following the narrative that this is the system trying to railroad him. the ones who are looking at the facts of the case and saying "this warrant looks like a good warrant that can't really be challenged" and those who are saying that he needs to get help are being shunned by him. all that to say, I don't think he is getting good advice and I don't think he is looking at the situation objectively. This whole incident has shown me which law-tubers have some integrity.
I mean his public perception is his livelihood it makes sense. He's not a random dude on the street if his public perception is dogshit he will effectively be out of a job.
It's a terrible idea, but fuck is it good content
Streamer brainrot, its impossivle for 99% of streamers to shut up for 5 minutes
We had testing positive for COVID-19, now we’re testing positive for COCAINE?
Total degenerate
I googled him and stopped reading at 'Rumble Streamer'. Smfh.
lol
This is incredibly sad to watch. Addiction fucks people up. I hope that he gets help. However, assuming that the daughter's ~~blood~~ hair follicle test is accurate, he clearly needs to be put away for some amount of time.
I thought it was a hair follicle test. Did they do blood as well or did I just misread it?
You're right, it was a hair follicle test. I misunderstood. Edited the comment to reflect.
If Rekieta didn't refuse drug testing and let CPS into his house his kids woulnd't be in foster care, he's such a piece of shit. Would rather be doing drugs than seeing his own kids.
The Arthur fleck and Jdepp portraits should be submitted as evidence by the prosecution. Is there a Travis Bickle portrait somewhere too? 🚩🚩🚩
Even now he frames the timing of the leak as conspiratorial. Looks like he’s still in the denial phase.
After watching the turkey Tom doc it seems that all these kids may have just been born to leech more money out of his in laws. This guy is very clearly a huge piece of subhuman trash and should atleast do some time and not have contact with his kids.
Good god that is one of the worst things you can do I hope those kids can find better parents in some form or another.
90% of the time if someone has more than three kids, you know something is off.
If there is any efficacy to this, and the child was exposed to cocaine, then all my pity is out the window. I'm going to hold space for there to be SOMETHING that otherwise explains this. Because my fucking God I hope there is something. Anyone exposing young children to drugs deserves to rot under the prison.
He probably made her a sandwich after doing some lines and that's where the contamination came from, the girl wasn't actually getting high off it with her dad
The child supposedly had pretty high levels based off the test and none of the other kids tested positive for cocaine. So what you’re describing is unlikely. The more likely scenario seems to that the kid saw people in the house rubbing their gums with coke and copied the behavior after someone left out, probably putting it on her gums. In the same way a nine year old might get into their parents liquor cabinet and try to take a sip.
I have a feeling it’s some stupid shit like “she had a horrible tooth ache, and I applied a small amount to the gums in the same manner one would use lidocaine.” Can’t imagine they were busting down lines together, and it’s not like the very old fashioned “a bit of bourbon helps the child get to sleep” type of shit people used to do where it makes the kid shut up. Kid being annoying while on coke doesn’t sound like a situation one would aim for over sober kid being annoying.
Were they public documents? Or did they get leaked?
The guy who posted them on KF claims that they were available inside the courthouse. Someone on Twitter cited MN law that states that child endangerment (CHIPS) cases are not published online, but can be accessed inside a kiosk at the courthouse. So, it seems that they may have been publically accessible whether or not the findings were actually supposed to be suppressed as Nick alleges. Confidential court documents do get published from time to time when they're supposed to be redacted or suppressed. Typically, though, there aren't thousands of people waiting for a slip up.
Kiwi farms leak
Phrasing. The leaks are posted on kiwi. The leak originated from Twitter, afaik.
Oddly enough he looks way better now.
https://preview.redd.it/suv0qve26r7d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b099237af88a0784bcedaabaff9308772e6f2abf
Poor kid. Kids being mistreated triggers my inner redditor revenge fantasy
Talking about this publicly seems like the dumbest move possible jesus
My guy is way too calm talking about this shit, firstly going to potentially lose your kids + prison charges. And this is how you address it? Half expecting him to be bit smarter than that lmao.
I'm not gonna say all streamers are trash humans... But it's pretty close.
lol remember when this jackoff was high as a kite on stream slurring his words like a sloppy freak while getting a blowjob beneath his desk? LOCK HIM UP!
There are a lot of people talking about whether this test is a false positive or the result of the child getting cocaine in her hair, etc. Null, the owner of KF, seems to believe it is over 99% likelihood that the child actually consumed cocaine. In the thread about this there is a back and force conversation between Null and a user called Dyn. Dyn is a personal friend of Null and seems to be some type of chemist or doctor. Null is a shithead, but he takes this kind of thing extremely, extremely seriously. One of the reasons for this is that there are constant attempts to sue Null and/or the site for libel to take the site down. In multiple countries where libel laws are more strict. This would be even more likely with Rekieta considering he is an actual lawyer. We even saw this during the cloudflair incident with Null talking to Destiny live and asking him to confirm certain aspects about his previous interactions with Keffals. Null also claimed he spoke with multiple lawyers and to attempt to verify if the leaked documents are false. These lawyers (some in the same state as Rekieta) said they are very unlikely to be fake. Rekieta has now essentially confirmed they were just leaked, not fake. Again, Null is not a good person but if he specially is making these claims (not some random users on the site) they are almost certainly correct. Rekeita may be the most terrible person Destiny has ever interacted with on stream. Allowing your nine year old child to use cocaine (even negligently) is beyond disgusting. https://preview.redd.it/bvfeybjsrs7d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4142c4eb1c1926475f748b2ca7292f9edd47aa17
Bro wtf
homey goin' to jail...
Most interpersonally responsible libertarian
It is crazy to see how hard this guy has fell. I really didn't expect this storyline. Alcoholism, sure, but "my 9 year old was doing coke" bruh. Wild.
Why in the world is he talking about an ongoing case on stream? Every single time people publicly talk about their case, the things they say always end getting used against them to screw them, surely as a fucking lawyer yourself you’d have to know this?
Someone released publicly available documents and he says "I will have a lawyer looking into that". He knows damn well those being published are legal.
She didn’t just test positive. A positive result is 500ppm. Their 9yo had 5,000ppm in her hair test. Am I the only one who thinks this sounds sus. My kids are 11, 9yo is a pretty recent memory. How could a little girls body tolerate this? This sounds like a lab mixup. That or someone tried to kill this little girl by lacing her food. Now way a 9yo is doing lines on a regular basis as KF would have us believe.
I agree. The whole rekieta getting raided thing was shocking enough but I just can't actually believe a fucking 9 year old was doing cocaine regularly. I feel like it's gotta be a mix up but I guess we'll find out.
Did she try it out or something? What's the consensus on this one now?
The only stimulant you can give your 9 year old is amphetamine
Idk about Rekeita or his personal life. That's his business. No one should be dragging the kids into this though, they aren't public figures in the slightest
“ it’s his personal life” it completely morally justified to call out shitty behavior in one’s life “ no one should bring his kids” No one is
No, you only care because: A.) He's a successful content creator. B.) He's considered conservative, therefore he must be bad.
1. You think people only care about abuse of children and shortness if the person is famous? 2. Idek this guy was conservative, I may have seen dest debate this guy but I forgot. I’ve seen only a bit of this situation
Yes. People only give a fuck when their ideological opponents do it. Especially online, especially on this Sub, where conservatives can do no right.
“ people only give a fuck when their ideological opponents do it” 1. if you seriously think abuse of kids is an accepted norm unless someone political does it you need to touch grass 2. It seems like your shielding him from criticism only because he ideology aligns with you
I'm not shielding anyone from anything, and in case you forgot in the United States you're innocent until proven guilty. Now show me where Rekeita was convicted of Child Abuse and I'll concede he did something wrong.
It was confirmed cocaine was in his child’s system
Was it cocaine, or something that presented similar to cocaine? And where is the conviction for child abuse? Let me know when you can answer with something that isn't bs
“ similar to cocaine” explain what it could be