Science Can Explain Everything (Except Why You Should Go to Prison)

By: John Guidry

Science can explain everything. As I sit here typing, neurologists can explain how the light from the screen is processed by my retina. Some scanner (fMRI?) could probably map out my visual cortex. But the tough question is: Why? Science can explain the structure, but it often fails to explain the feeling. It can explain how coffee smells, but not how it tastes to me.

Suffice it to say, even though there are limitations on science, certain criminal cases are begging for a bit of attention from the white coats. You need science to prove certain allegations. And in the case of Nugent v. State, the State failed because they didn’t bring any science to the courtroom.

Did the police find drugs in your car, but they weren’t yours?

Proximity is not possession. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: Nugent v. State (The Plain View Trap)

Demetrius Nugent was convicted of Trafficking in Oxycodone based on pills found in a car he was driving. (Nugent v. State, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 8933).

The Setup:

• Lee County Sheriff’s deputies were watching a “suspicious” red Mustang.
• They saw a Nissan pull up, a passenger hop out, and get into the Mustang.
• The police followed the Nissan (driven by Nugent) and pulled it over for a “rolling stop” (the classic pretext to find drugs).

The Discovery:

• K-9 Alert: A dog alerted on the car.
• The Search: Police found a bottle of Oxycodone in the driver’s door pocket (next to a cold water bottle) and a baggie of pills in the center console (on top of Nugent’s paperwork).

The State’s Argument: The drugs were in “Plain View.” They were next to Nugent’s cold water. They were on top of his papers. Therefore, he must be guilty of trafficking.

The Law: Knowledge vs. Dominion

The prosecutor convicted Nugent by claiming “Plain View” was enough. Wrong. As the great Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) said in Ghostbusters: “Just tell me what the Hell is going on.”

Florida has two types of possession:

1. Actual Possession: In your hand or pocket.
2. Constructive Possession: Found near you, but not on you.

The “Joint Occupant” Rule: Because Nugent had a passenger, the car was “Jointly Occupied.” Under these rules, the State must prove three things:

1. Knowledge of the drug.
2. Dominion over the drug.
3. Control over the drug.

The “Hamilton” Example: Years ago, an undercover cop bought cocaine. The dealer sat in the driver’s seat; the passenger sat next to him. The cop handed cash to the passenger, who handed it to the driver. The driver handed cocaine to the passenger, who handed it to the cop.

• Result: The passenger was charged with possession.
• Ruling: Dismissed. Even though the passenger touched the drugs (control) and saw them (knowledge), he didn’t have Dominion (ownership). He was just a conduit. (Hamilton v. State, 1999).

The Ruling: No Science, No Conviction

In Nugent, the State proved Knowledge (the drugs were in plain view). But they failed to prove Dominion and Control.

The Appellate Court overturned the conviction because the State got lazy.

“The State did not submit scientific evidence, such as Nugent’s fingerprints or DNA on the contraband; eyewitness testimony from the passenger; or inculpatory statements from Nugent.”

The court ruled that just because the drugs were next to his water bottle didn’t prove he owned or controlled them. Without fingerprints or DNA linking him to the bottle, the case was pure speculation.

John’s 2026 Update: The Rise of Touch DNA

Note: In 2019, the State failed because they didn’t test for DNA. In 2026, they test for everything.

1. Touch DNA is the New Standard In Nugent, the court complained about the lack of DNA. Today, prosecutors almost always swab pill bottles for Touch DNA (skin cells left behind by handling).

• The Danger: If your DNA is found on the bottle, the “Nugent Defense” fails.
• The Counter-Argument: We now argue “Transfer DNA.” If you shook hands with the passenger, and the passenger handled the bottle, your DNA could end up on the bottle without you ever touching it. We hire forensic experts to explain this “secondary transfer” to the jury.

2. Body Cam “Eye Tracking” In 2026, police body cams are high-definition. Prosecutors use footage to claim they saw your eyes “darting” toward the door pocket where the drugs were hidden.

• Defense: We analyze the footage frame-by-frame. If your eyes didn’t look there, we use the video to disprove their claim of “furtive movements.”

3. The “Plain View” Fight With tinted windows and nighttime stops, “Plain View” is harder to claim.

• We demand the officer recreate the lighting conditions. If they couldn’t see the pill bottle from outside the car (as they often claim), the probable cause for the search might be invalid from the start.

Don’t Let Them Guess You Into Prison

The State cannot lock you up based on assumptions. If they didn’t do the science, they shouldn’t get the conviction.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s demand the proof.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.