By Joe Palazzolo
- Reuters
It’s Good Friday, so we went document diving for a few special Easter references. You’d be surprised — we were, at least — at how often “Easter egg” pops up in federal criminal cases. Below are a few of our favorites.
A 2009 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit begins this way:
Denver’s Alpine Rose Motel was something of a “drive-thru” crack market. Customers needed only to pull their cars into the parking lot to receive window-side service from one of the motel’s resident drug runners. A runner would take the customer’s order, proceed to different motel rooms occupied by crack dealers until he found sufficient quantities to fill the order, and then make the delivery. So-called enforcers helped keep the peace among the motel’s residents. Two leaders of the operation replenished the various dealers’ drug supply on a daily basis and mediated disputes. A peculiar sort of community spirit evolved, with a Mother’s Day “crack scramble” and an Easter egg hunt with rocks of crack substituted for eggs. The business model proved highly successful — some 100 customers visited each day at the height of the motel’s crack dealing operation in the summer of 2004.
From a 2010 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on a fee dispute:
Continuing to litigate this case with three lawyers, running up the hours with the speed and momentum of an out of control freight train, is the very definition of overreaching. Following Sheriff Weber’s deposition, Paul’s chances of losing this case rivaled the odds of the Easter Bunny, during next February’s Super Bowl, throwing the winning touchdown pass, off a triple reverse on the last play of the game, for a come from behind victory, for the St. Louis Rams (1-15 last year). Actually, I would bet on the Easter Bunny.
From a 2009 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, on a motion to exclude testimony:
Being an expert in the industry does not, however, make Dr. Benbrook an expert on DuPont. Dr. Benbrook has never worked inside DuPont nor done any consulting work for the company. He claims he has become an expert on DuPont by reading documents produced in this litigation. But that is akin to studying the Grand Canyon by looking at its depiction in an old-fashioned peeping-type Easter egg. The view is sharp only because it is so narrow. It is not enough to make Dr. Benbrook an expert on DuPont.
Another drug-filled egg in this 2007 ruling by the North Carolina Court of Appeals:
The defendant was “in the kitchen area” when Sgt. Bray went inside. After identifying himself and explaining to defendant why he was there, Sgt. Bray and the other officers conducted a “detailed search of the residence.” In the living room they found marijuana and a crack pipe under the sofa. Patterson admitted that the pipe was his. There was a bag of marijuana on the kitchen counter and a set of scales in the pantry. On top of the refrigerator they found what was later determined to be 5.6 grams of cocaine in a child’s plastic Easter egg, and another 28.2 grams of cocaine in a bag under a cheerleading pompom.