By David Zapp
So said a famous judge in the U.S. Whose experience? Your experience. My experience. The more experience the more you can predict legal outcomes. Take for example the legal requirement in a narcotics importation conspiracy that the government must prove that the defendant know—not just believe—that the drugs were going to the U.S. A defense that the drugs shipped to Guatemala were not necessarily going to the United States will probably lose absent an affirmative showing, using official reports and expert testimony that the drugs following that central American route could go to other countries as well. Why? Because experience tells us that drugs following the Central American route will end up in the U.S. If you cannot actually—not theoretically– show otherwise you will lose. Knowledge of the route itself would be the circumstantial evidence that the defendant knew the drugs were destined for the U.S.
That said, too often defense attorneys, prosecutors, and agents assume that everyone knows that drugs shipped from Colombia are going to the U.S. and that is careless thinking. What about drugs shipped from Colombia to parts unknown? That is a different story, because there is no route allowing experience to conclude that the drugs were going to the U.S. Just look at the map. The drugs could just as easily go to Europe. With the submission of a few internationally recognized reports, plus expert testimony of an experienced investigator of the ex-DEA variety, a defense of ignorance could well prevail.