See what you think about this one.
The backpack in the car almost certainly belonged to one of the three people in the vehicle. (I'm deliberately not going to tell you which one of the three is the defendant.)
The backpack was located behind the center console of a parked vehicle. The car was "packed tight" and incredibly messy. Inside the backpack was (1) some marijuana, and (2) a gun.
The person in the driver's seat knew there was marijuana in the backpack but said nothing about the gun. He also gave a false name when asked by the police.
The person in the passenger's seat was the girlfriend of the (recently deceased) registered owner of the gun, and inside the gun case was a slip of paper with the (dead) boyfriend's name on it.
The person in the back seat was the brother of the (recently deceased) registered owner of the gun; the guy whose name was on the slip of paper. There was also a disassembled rifle in a gun case next to the person in the back seat.
There are no fingerprints on the gun or backpack or anything in it. The police took some DNA swabs from the backpack and its contents but never tested them.
Three groups of questions:
(1) What's your bet as to whose backpack it was? In other words, if you had to guess, who'd you put your money on as the actual owner of the thing?
(2) How confident are you of that assessment. What are the odds you're right? Is it a one in three thing? More likely than not you're right? Virtually certain you're right? Correct beyond a reasonable doubt?
(3) Assume the driver was convicted for possessing the gun. Do you think the evidence against him proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Now assume the woman in the passenger seat was convicted. Is the same also true for her; e.g., is she the owner beyond a reasonable doubt? Ditto for the person in the back seat; is the evidence clear that he owned the backpack? (There's little or no evidence that the backpack belonged to all of them, or anyone else, so assume it's gotta be one of the three.)
Needless to say, only one of the three was actually charged with possessing the gun. And the Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence against this person was sufficient.
Which one do you think it was?
And do you agree that the evidence against this person established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
