I guess my question is: if you attack the validity of the search, and not dispute that you didn't have the cocaine (all the other charges hinge on this), and you lose the battle about the warrant being invalid, aren't you fucked?
You can raise multiple defenses, even contradictory defenses.
However, drug cases are generally absurdly cut and dried. It very often comes down to whether the exclusionary rule applies. If the prosecution can introduce a mountain of cocaine that the defendant undeniably possessed, they win. If the evidence is excluded, they lose.
Unless this goes fully bizarre (always a possibility in cow litigation), the warrant and its execution are challenged. Nick loses on that at the trial court level. They then appeal that specific issue.
I mentioned a conditional plea earlier, where the defendant pleads guilty but reserves the right to appeal specific rulings on pretrial motions like a motion to suppress. Apparently, though, Minnesota doesn't allow this:
A conditional plea of guilty may not be entered when the defendant reserves the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or any other pretrial order. State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. 1980). However, the parties may agree to stipulate to the prosecution's case to obtain review of a pretrial ruling under Rule 26.01, subd. 4. A guilty plea also waives any appellate challenge to an order certifying the defendant as an adult. Waynewood v. State, 552 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 1996).
The relevant subd.
Subd. 4.Stipulation to Prosecution's Case to Obtain Review of a Pretrial Ruling.
(a) When the parties agree that the court's ruling on a specified pretrial issue is dispositive of the case, or that the ruling makes a contested trial unnecessary, the following procedure must be used to preserve the issue for appellate review.
(b) The defendant must maintain the plea of not guilty.
(c) The defendant and the prosecutor must acknowledge that the pretrial issue is dispositive, or that a trial will be unnecessary if the defendant prevails on appeal.
(d) The defendant, after an opportunity to consult with counsel, must waive the right to a jury trial under subdivision 1(2)(a), and must personally waive the rights specified in subdivision 3(b)(1)-(4).
(e) The defendant must stipulate to the prosecution's evidence in a trial to the court, and acknowledge that the court will consider the prosecution's evidence, and that the court may enter a finding of guilt based on that evidence.
(f) The defendant must also acknowledge that appellate review will be of the pretrial issue, but not of the defendant's guilt, or of other issues that could arise at a contested trial.
(g) The defendant and the prosecutor must make the preceding acknowledgments personally, in writing or on the record.
(h) After consideration of the stipulated evidence, the court must make an appropriate finding, and if that finding is guilty, the court must also make findings of fact on the record or in writing as to each element of the offense(s).
(Amended effective October 1, 2017; amended effective September 1, 2018.)
So they do have an analogous procedure, but it isn't a conditional plea, although like such a plea, it requires both the prosecution and defendant to agree to it. Just based on his record, I'm pretty sure this Francis White guy is familiar with the relevant procedure.
So if Nick opts to go that way, and obtain review of a suppression motion without a trial, it would indeed involve stipulating to the prosecution's case, that is, admitting to the existence of the cocaine.
If he chose to lose the motion to supress (almost a guarantee), he would have to wait until after the trial, possibly while incarcerated, to appeal it after trial.
Plea agreements waive the right to challenge the legality of a search, but there's an exception for "conditional pleas." With those, you take the plea but reserve the right to appeal a particular issue. They're used in cases with outcome determinative pretrial rulings to avoid the waste of time of a trial. It wouldn't be unreasonable for Nick to do that in this case, because if the warrant is valid he's pretty well fucked.
This is something I've said in this thread and apparently I was wrong. However, Minnesota does have a fairly similar procedure, they just style it differently.
Clean piss tests, rehab completion, and deferred adjudication pending completion of a diversion program would go a lot further in the fight to get his kids back than fighting and somehow winning his criminal case.
Like he gives a flying fuck about his kids who he's basically admitted he hates.
