[hanamizu]

The state Supreme Court argued that the mere act of finding an illicit substance on someone’s person or on their property is not enough to prove they had any intent to possess those drugs. In other words, they could unknowingly be in possession of heroin or cocaine and they shouldn’t have to prove to the court that they are innocent.

---

First of all, in American justice you aren’t supposed to have to prove your innocence, the state has to prove your guilt.

But I have to wonder, following the Court’s logic, will this also apply to people in possession of weapons?

[NobleFree]

But I have to wonder, following the Court’s logic, will this also apply to people in possession of weapons?

I am not a lawyer, but I have read that mens rea - 'the defendant must be conscious of the “facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense”' - is 'usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial'. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea)

[Scrambler Bob]

But I have to wonder, following the Court’s logic, will this also apply to people in possession of weapons?
= = =

I don’t know who put that S&W Model 29 8 3/8 barrel evil gun in my pocket.