Amazing case. I dont think however it will stand the test of time today.
A driver that supposedly doesnt know how marihuana smells (how do you prove he does or does not) drives across the state moving tons of contraband so long as he does not posses a key to the truck's locker.
I guess in court you ‘prove’ that a person has no knowledge of the smell of marijuana by all of:
a) they make a statement under oath to the effect that they have no knowledge
b) they and their immediate family / propuesta they live with have no relevant convictions or charges that would contradict the above, and no known links to anyone who clearly does (no electronic communications collect as evidence)
c) they are otherwise a just, upright, and moral citizen
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant has a right to remain silent(5th amendment) and that silence cannot be used against him/her.
If there is no evidence* that the person knows what marijuana smells like, then their knowledge of what it smells like cannot be proved, so there is no issue of fact for a jury to consider, and the case should be dismissed.
* - 'evidence' is a very low bar to meet. It can be something as benign as a conversation about herbal remedies. Once there is some sort of 'evidence' -- it can go to trial and is up to the jury (the trier of fact) to determine if indeed that conversation about herbal remedies proves the defendant knows what marijuana smells like.
One thing I found interesting is that nearly every type of charge has a set of jury instructions that tell the jury exactly what they must decide. They are quite enlightening. FL Jury instructions for most drug offenses:
A driver that supposedly doesnt know how marihuana smells (how do you prove he does or does not) drives across the state moving tons of contraband so long as he does not posses a key to the truck's locker.