The court fully acquitted the client of the drug-possession charge, revoked pretrial detention and ordered immediate release from custody in the courtroom.
The charge and initial hearing
I was approached for legal assistance by a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran whose family member, R.S., had been charged with the unlawful acquisition and possession of a particularly large quantity of narcotic drugs under Article 260(3)(a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. The offense carried a potential sentence of 8 to 20 years’ imprisonment or life imprisonment.
According to the prosecution, police officers discovered narcotic substances during a personal search of R.S. The prosecution’s main evidence consisted of search and seizure reports, testimony from police officers, and a chemical forensic examination report. The defendant denied the charges and maintained that the narcotic substances did not belong to him.
After taking on the case, I participated in the hearing concerning the application of a preventive measure. I presented arguments against pretrial detention and requested a less restrictive measure. However, the court accepted the prosecution’s position and ordered that R.S. remain in custody.
Preparing the defense evidence
We had approximately 55 days before the pretrial hearing. I used this period to obtain independent evidence for the defense. First, I carefully examined the arrest and search reports, statements made by police officers, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged discovery of the narcotic substances. One particularly important issue was that the search had not been video-recorded, despite the presence of several police officers who had the technical ability to record the procedure using their mobile phones.
As part of the defense investigation, I interviewed individuals who had information about the circumstances of the incident and obtained CCTV footage from cameras located in the surrounding area. The footage did not reveal anything confirming the police officers’ account of the alleged discovery of the narcotic substances. At the same time, the recordings did not capture the entire search procedure, so I did not base the defense strategy solely on this evidence.
In parallel, I commissioned an independent forensic biological examination of the physical evidence. The materials submitted for examination included the packaging of the alleged narcotic substances and other relevant physical evidence. The examination did not identify an attributable DNA profile belonging to R.S. on any of the examined items. This was particularly significant because the prosecution alleged that R.S. had personally possessed and stored the substances.
At the pretrial hearing, I submitted the evidence obtained by the defense and filed the relevant motions. I drew the court’s attention to concerns regarding the reliability of the search, the absence of video documentation, and the findings of the independent forensic examination. Despite the defense arguments, the case proceeded to trial.
Testing the evidence at trial
In my opening statement at trial, I explained that the defense did not merely dispute whether the seized substance was a narcotic drug. Our central position was that the prosecution lacked sufficient and reliable evidence directly linking R.S. to possession of the substance.
During the examination of evidence, I extensively cross-examined the police officers who had participated in the search. My questions concerned the circumstances of the arrest, the time the search began, the exact location where the narcotic substances were allegedly discovered, and the procedures followed during their seizure and packaging.
The cross-examination revealed contradictions. The officers provided differing accounts of certain aspects of the search, and their explanations did not fully correspond with the information recorded in the official search reports.
I paid particular attention to why the search had not been video-recorded. The officers were unable to provide a convincing explanation of what objective circumstances had prevented them from recording the procedure, especially given that several officers were present and had access to the necessary technology.
I explained to the court that the absence of video footage does not automatically make a search unlawful. However, where the circumstances of a search are disputed and police testimony is contradictory, the absence of independent documentation directly affects the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence.
The court then examined the CCTV footage obtained by the defense and heard testimony from the relevant witnesses. This evidence did not confirm the prosecution’s account of the circumstances surrounding the alleged discovery of the narcotic substances.
The forensic findings
The testimony of the defense-appointed forensic expert was particularly important. The expert confirmed before the court that no identifiable DNA profile belonging to R.S. had been detected on any of the examined physical evidence.
During the examination, we also clarified the limitations of the forensic findings. The absence of DNA does not, by itself, conclusively exclude the possibility of physical contact with an object. However, it also provides no affirmative support for the prosecution’s version of events. Accordingly, where the reliability of the search is disputed and independent corroborating evidence is lacking, such forensic findings become an important factor in assessing the defense position.
Closing argument and rebuttal
Following the examination of evidence, I delivered my closing argument, emphasizing that the prosecution bore the burden of proving R.S.’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I reminded the court that the case involved contradictory police testimony, the absence of video documentation of the search, CCTV footage obtained by the defense that did not corroborate the prosecution’s account, and an independent forensic report confirming that R.S.’s identifiable DNA profile had not been found on the examined items.
I further explained that the chemical forensic examination established the narcotic nature of the substance but did not establish who owned or possessed it.
I also referred to Decision No. 2/2/1276 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, which addresses the importance of neutral and independent evidence in assessing the reliability of searches.
I emphasized that the prosecution could not overcome the weaknesses in its evidence merely by relying on police testimony, particularly when the officers’ accounts were inconsistent with one another.
Following the prosecution’s closing argument, I delivered a rebuttal addressing the prosecutor’s assertion that the absence of DNA was irrelevant.
I explained that the defense did not rely solely on the forensic examination. What mattered was the combined effect of all the circumstances: the disputed search, the unexplained absence of video documentation, contradictions in police testimony, and the lack of independent corroborating evidence.
The outcome
Ultimately, the court accepted the defense arguments and concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove R.S.’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court fully acquitted R.S. of the charge brought under Article 260(3)(a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia, revoked the pretrial detention order, and R.S. was immediately released from custody in the courtroom.
Each case depends on its own facts and evidence.