Keon (28:52)
I just want to take a moment to give your listeners an understanding of in particular the motion to dismiss. Because that's, that's an important point in this whole story. At this point of proceedings, you write a motion to dismiss indictment and as the defendant, you have to at this point assume that everything the government has said about you in the indictment is true. Right? You're not there to argue the facts of the case because juries are the ones who decide facts. The judge is the one who decides the law. And in the motion to dismiss, you have to keep it solely on the law. So you're saying anything the government said is true and it should still be dismissed because of XYZ points of law. And we wrote a really phenomenal motion to dismiss. A lot of research, a lot of time went into it and we found various precedent setting cases, Supreme Court cases that really tied into this situation beautifully. Two I will mention briefly, one was in 1940, a sugar distributor was charged with a conspiracy charge, just like we were, because he knowingly sold sugar to a bootlegger who is creating alcohol, which was illegal at that time. And the Supreme Court said you can't convict him of conspiracy just because he had some vague knowledge of a crime. Right. He had to be actually part of the crime. And just by selling the, the sugar, that didn't make him part of the crime. And then the second one that was really compelling was a case from the 90s, a grow light manufacturer. So usually you use like grow lights when you're growing tomatoes or hydroponic systems, that type of thing. They got this guy on a conspiracy charge because he knowingly sold his grow lights to a marijuana dealer or grower and he even advertised his grow lights in High Times magazine, which is a marijuana enthusiast magazine. And he even had jokes, which the government is, doesn't have a sense of humor. They do not like jokes. And he said to the person he was selling to, I don't even want to know what you're doing with these slates. Right? And he got convicted on conspiracy in front of the jury, and then it was overturned on appeal because again, the appeal court said just mere knowledge isn't enough. You have to be part of the actual criminal act itself. So we were pretty confident in our arguments, but on this motion to dismiss, and if, even if we didn't think it was going to work and she was going to, going to dismiss the indictment, because that's pretty rare, we still thought that she would have an opinion on it, and it tell us why she's either approving or denying the motion, granting or denying it. So we go into court, we have our, all of our motions. Keep in mind, getting to this point alone has cost us about a million and a half dollars. Right? Getting this motion, getting all this stuff together, very expensive process. And we're ready to argue. And no argument. She says, I don't need any argument. I've read all the motions. They're all denied. And that was it. Right. So she didn't, she didn't have any argument on the Brady violation, no argument on the motion to dismiss, no argument or, or anything on the, the amicus briefs for the third parties to give her information, all denied with one word and no oral or written opinion as to why she was denying it. So we just had nothing to even work with. So at that point, when that happened, I kind of looked to my lawyer and was just like, what is going on here? Like, this judge isn't even going to listen to our arguments. You know, she even isn't going to, you know, entertain a, a, a free and fair trial. This is not going to go well. And at that point, I think my, my mindset shifted from we're going to put our version in front of the jury, we're going to have a fair trial, the jury's going to examine the facts and make a determination, and I think we're in the clear to there's no way that this judge is going to let us put on the defense that we want to put on. We're not going to get a fair trial, and the jury is going to have no choice but to convict us based on the evidence that they get to hear. Because again, people think everything comes out at a trial. It doesn't the judge has so much control as to what evidence the jury actually ends up hearing that I really felt that going to trial was going to end in a conviction and that conviction would be a 25 year sentence just knowing how this judge operates. So that's, that's where I, my head was at at that point.