"...prosecutors failed to prove Miller Genuine Draft is indeed beer."

[Shockeye]

Judge finds beer claim hard to swallow; prosecutor seeks new round

By Holly Herman
Reading Eagle
 
The case went flat for prosecutors when Berks County Judge Jeffrey K. Sprecher dismissed charges against a 44-year old Kutztown man accused of buying beer for his 17-year-old neighbor.

The teen, Shawn Putnam of Kutztown, testified at a pretrial hearing that Gregg R. Hartman, his neighbor, bought him a case of Miller Genuine Draft at Duffer's Distributors in Kutztown on Jan. 7 and that he drank five beers from the case.

But Sprecher ruled, in an order made available Tuesday, that prosecutors failed to prove Miller Genuine Draft is indeed beer.

Sprecher sided with the defense and ruled Putnam's testimony was not enough to prove Hartman of the 300 block of East Walnut Street bought beer.

“They did not have any beer cans or tests to prove it was beer,” argued defense attorney David R. Eshelman.

Eshelman said prosecutors did not present a state Liquor Control Board list of all beers.

“There is no testimony on the record that the beer contained any alcohol,” he said. “In most cases, the prosecutors will give a list from the state with names of beer to prove that it is beer. In this case, they did not do that.”

On Tuesday, Assistant District Attorney Joseph R. Speece filed a request for Sprecher to reconsider his decision and included with that the state's list of beers.

“We thought that the boy's testimony proved that he drank beer,” Speece said.

According to testimony at the pretrial hearing:

Hartman picked up Putnam to drive him to a restaurant. Instead, Putnam said, Hartman agreed to drive him to the distributor and buy beer for Putnam.

Putnam drank five beers in the car while Hartman drove around.

Hartman's car skidded on the right side of Long Lane in Greenwich Township and went off the road at 11:20 p.m.

State police responded, and Hartman was charged with furnishing liquor to minors.

Officials said Putnam was cited for underage drinking and pleaded guilty. Further details were unavailable.

Eshelman said the law requires prosecutors to prove the beer contained at least 5 percent alcohol.

“No testimony or evidence on records proved that Miller Genuine Draft contained 5 percent alcohol,” Eshelman said. “I was not surprised with the outcome. It was the right outcome.”

[schild]

I know what my kids are getting in their bottles.

[Merusk]

Why is it people hate lawyers again? I can't recall and it hasn't been explained in this thread, therefore everyone must love lawyers.

[schild]

I'm just wondering if beer is legal for kiddies if it contains under 5% alcohol. It's all very strange to me.

[Stormwaltz]

I'm glad to see I have the law on my side when I argue that swill is not beer.

[Evangolis]

I know it's all bleeding heart liberal of me to think it, but when it comes to putting people in cages, close really isn't good enough.  'Sorry, Your Honor, we didn't keep the evidence' really isn't acceptable.  The person who done wrong here ain't the defense attorney.

And what happened to all that beer, that it didn't wind up in the evidence locker?  I'm pretty rusty on drugs and alcohol the last couple of decades, but in my day, 5 beers did not a case make.  Or a real buzz, either.

[Murgos]

I'm thinking Hartman killed the rest of it.  His car went off the road enough so that police had to come respond.

[Sky]

He confessed and pleaded guilty.

But the precedent is insane. Anchor Steam for the kids tonight! I wish I had known that when I was a kid.

There's a whole lot of legal underage beer on that list. Is Berks County in Kansas, by any chance?

And what happened to all that beer, that it didn't wind up in the evidence locker?

In my vast experience on the subject (no joke, I was in a band from 14), they will generally pour it out on the ground in front of you.

[Bunk]

I didn't think there were any beers from the big American breweries that had 5% alcholol.

[HaemishM]

So the judge let him off because the state wouldn't take the trouble to provide one simple list of what the State Alcohol board considers a beer? That's all it would have taken?

Not only does this point out the vast amounts of stupid lawyers can dream up, it points out this particular place needs to have its DA's dragged out into the street and beaten. Why not? It isn't like the DA's office could convict anyone who participated anyway. The defense would probably argue that the state did not provide a good enough description of what a baseball bat is.

[Murgos]

In this case I side with the defenses lawyers.  If you are going to send someone to prison (or fine them or whatever) over giving beer to a minor then you better damn well define what beer is.

[Sky]

If you are going to send someone to prison (or fine them or whatever) over giving beer to a minor then you better damn well define what beer is.

I guess the confession and guilty plea weren't enough for you, or that MGD is a nationally-known BEER?

[Murgos]

You know that "For the record" term everyone always tosses around with out really knowing what it means Sky?  This is the time where it's appropriate; thankfully the Judge understood that.

[schild]

Let the record show that common sense should be allowed in the court room.

MGD is a beer. Fuck the paperwork.

Edit: Really though, shit like this reminds me that we're but one step removed from wearing white wigs and larping in courtrooms.

[Sky]

Edit: Really though, shit like this reminds me that we're but one step removed from wearing white wigs and larping in courtrooms.

Prithee, sirrah, bite thy tongue! Such heathenism should be forbade in this hallowed hall!

You know that "For the record" term everyone always tosses around with out really knowing what it means Sky?  This is the time where it's appropriate; thankfully the Judge understood that.

If the judge wants to suspend reality for technicality, if I were the DA...I'd take a 15 minute recess, hit the local convenience store to buy a cold twelvie of MGD. Then slam them all (shotgun-style) in front of the jury and use my inebriation as evidence. Puking on the judge's robe would be a bonus, really drive the fucking obvious home.

[Murgos]

If the judge wants to suspend reality for technicality, if I were the DA...I'd take a 15 minute recess, hit the local convenience store to buy a cold twelvie of MGD. Then slam them all (shotgun-style) in front of the jury and use my inebriation as evidence. Puking on the judge's robe would be a bonus, really drive the fucking obvious home.

Fine, as long as it was in the record.

[Sky]

Literally, vomit on the record! 

[HaemishM]

That would be a thing of pure beauty, enough to make me watch Court TV.

[Evangolis]

And what happened to all that beer, that it didn't wind up in the evidence locker?

In my vast experience on the subject (no joke, I was in a band from 14), they will generally pour it out on the ground in front of you.

On the other hand, I've been bribed by cops (they needed an endloader, my employer had one) with beer confiscated from kiddies. 

But in any event, if you go to court, you bring the evidence.  Basic rules of play.

[CmdrSlack]

MGD shouldn't be called beer.  Perhaps "swill," but not beer.

Quality homebrew > MGD

[Sky]

But in any event, if you go to court, you bring the evidence.  Basic rules of play.

"Your Honor, the victim was clearly visible in the sunlight"
"What is this 'sun'? I'm going to need some evidence that this hot orb of gasses exists and transmits light across the void to illuminate your client."
"..."

[Murgos]

But in any event, if you go to court, you bring the evidence.  Basic rules of play.

"Your Honor, the victim was clearly visible in the sunlight"
"What is this 'sun'? I'm going to need some evidence that this hot orb of gasses exists and transmits light across the void to illuminate your client."
"..."

Sky, buddy, the whole legal system of the western world is predicated on entering items into evidence showing that they are true and and then making statements and drawing conclusions from those facts.  Interestingly, this is also how the scientific method works (mostly).  You would be surprised at the number of things that get assumed to be true that really and truly aren't.

It's better this way, seriously.

[El Gallo]

If the law says no beer/alcoholic beverages for minors, the judge is an asshat and should have taken judicial notice (that's the vehicle by which obvious things don't need to be formally placed into evidence) of the fact that MGD is beer.

If the law says no beverages with more than 5% alcohol for minors, the judge probably did the right thing.

[El Gallo]

Anchor Steam for the kids tonight!

Holy crap.  Old English 800 has only a tiny bit more alcohol than Miller High Life?  My entire worldview is pretty much shattered.

[Murgos]

If the law says no beer/alcoholic beverages for minors, the judge is an asshat and should have taken judicial notice of the fact that MGD is beer.

If the law says no beverages with more than 5% alcohol for minors, the judge probably did the right thing.

O'Douls is something like 0.4% Alchohol by volume but it is a BEER. Should someone go to jail for giving a minor an O'Douls?  It has alchohol in it.

[El Gallo]

The existence of close cases does not make every case a close one.  All kidding about its lack of quality aside, MGD is not a close case.

[cevik]

I guess the confession and guilty plea weren't enough for you, or that MGD is a nationally-known BEER?

Unless you have more information on the subject than what is in the article, I think you are confused.  The man did not confess or plead guilty, however the child testified against the man.  The weight of the testimony alone (without an further evidence) was not considered enough proof to find the man guilty..

Here are the relevant portions of the article:

The teen, Shawn Putnam of Kutztown, testified at a pretrial hearing that Gregg R. Hartman, his neighbor, bought him a case of Miller Genuine Draft at Duffer's Distributors in Kutztown on Jan. 7 and that he drank five beers from the case.
...
Sprecher sided with the defense and ruled Putnam's testimony was not enough to prove Hartman of the 300 block of East Walnut Street bought beer.

I see plenty of statements in the article that Putnam testified against Hartman, but I see nothing about Hartman confessing and pleading guilty..

I'm willing to testify that I saw you giving beer to a minor, should you be put in jail?

[Murgos]

The existence of close cases does not make every case a close one.  All kidding about its lack of quality aside, MGD is not a close case.

And how do you define that O'douls is a close case and MGD is not?  Should I rely on the Judge being familiar with every beer in the world so as to adequately judge that THIS time it was or wasn't ok?

[TheWalrus]

 I think the point being that you could walk up to just about anyone in America old enough to respond to the question and ask them "Are you familiar with Miller Genuine Draft, and if so, what is it?" and the answer would be beer. Why? Because you'd have to be a Geico caveman not to know what the fuck it is. 

[Samwise]

I'd have said piss-water.  So maybe this is one of those close cases.