...been planted on them? Any precedent cases in favor of the crown prosecuting the accused, even though the accused (defense) argues that the drugs have been planted on them.
Where a witness (who has reason to lie for their own safety from being arrested) says that the defense was their source of drugs.
The accused is trying to say that the drugs have been planted on them by the witness that testified.
Where a witness (who has reason to lie for their own safety from being arrested) says that the defense was their source of drugs.
The accused is trying to say that the drugs have been planted on them by the witness that testified.