While I don't think that possession of any drugs should be illegal (or even very heavily regulated; especially plants like marijuana, coca, opium, etc.), there is a line with me when producing meth comes into the picture. I won't judge you personally. I won't. But let me explain why getting arrested for producing crystal meth is a little different than any other drug crime:
Unless you are a chemist, you are endangering everyone around you when you have a meth lab. There's no difference between that and driving drunk. You doing something that puts those around you in direct and immediate danger of severe injury. On another thread someone brought up nuclear bombs. If we believe in the right to possess person property as long as we aren't hurting others, why can't I possess a bomb or a nuclear reactor? I agree in the most limited way. There is no problem (at least theoretically) with someone possessing a nuclear bomb, or, for that matter, all the bits and pieces needed for a meth lab. However should I be allowed to toss the bomb up and down in my house when I don't exactly have Randy Moss' hands? [Sentences edited here. Please note - judging is against forum guidelines; I know you are speaking philosophically, but this crossed the line.] We all know it's dangerous, and I think it's safe to say that most of the people that cook it probably didn't receive a degree in chemical engineering. So, really, I have no problem with laws that focus on these people who, with great disregard for others, decide to cook meth. However, if drugs were legal, then trailer parks wouldn't be the top producer of meth. Some legitimate company with people with doctorates in physics would cook up fantastic batches of all the chemicals we could desire, and under safe conditions.
Anyway, if all that is inappropriate for this forum, I apologize. I'll end with some basic advice (I'll probably just repeat some of what I've said in other threads, so anyone who's read it already, just skip over the repeats):
1) If you run, you will get caught. I've always been one to say if I ever get arrested and face serious jail time, Brazil will be my new home. But, realistically, I'd never do it or suggest anyone do it (unless they were looking at execution for a crime they didn't commit or something else extreme).
2) Killing your brother, or anyone for that matter, won't help at all. Again, if you run, you will get caught. And for someone with your criminal history, a double murder and robbery of your family will earn you the death penalty. I'm sure some people would say, "Well, that's better than being in prison for 60 years." Those people have never seen death row. You'll be on death row for (on average) 10-20 years. In a single cell. With (depending upon where you are) between 30 minutes and 1 hours a day out of the cell. You'll shower maybe once a week. You'll eat the same food. The only faces you'll see are those of the prison guards and maybe the occasional priest or preacher trying to save your soul. I, for one, am completely and unequivocally against the death penalty, but, as many states still have it, as does the federal government it's a reality you have to consider. You're in a bad position, but there's no reason to make it worse. And, believe me, if you think you have it bad, talk to some of the people I have worked with that are on trial for capital murder. They sit in jail each day wondering how much longer they'll get to live.
3) As John McCain would say (just to get this straight, I'm mocking McCain, not honoring him), let me drop a little straight-talk on you: If this is a federal crime and you get convicted, there's no parole (for all crimes committed after 1987 that is). There is "good-time." But you'll serve at least 85% of your sentence (you can get, at the most, 54 days a year of "good time"). 85% of a 20 years sentenced means that, if you behave yourself and get all the good time you can, you'll serve 17 years. That's a long time, and I don't know how old you are, but if you're not an old man, you can still have a life when you get out. If you think that's hard to swallow, I've had to tell a 22 year old kid that he better take a life-without-parole offer (this is in a state court) because if he goes to trial, he loses his life.
4) There are options besides running, killing yourself, or just taking a life sentence. I'll be honest and say that having the guns is probably the most damaging part of your case. Whether you ever hurt anyone or not, you're considered a violent criminal because of the weapons, and courts don't like violent criminals. However, you can get a lawyer and fight. Your best chance (as is the case in most cases) is to try to get evidence suppressed. Sometimes even if the judge just MIGHT suppress evidence the US Attorney or District Attorney will offer a plea to a lesser charge to avoid the possibility of having some of his best evidence thrown out. I posted this on another thread, but here's a list of some potentially helpful cases when you're trying to get evidence tossed out (and if your attorney isn't familiar with these cases, then get a new one, because he isn't worth a damn; these are the basics):
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (you have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy before your right to privacy can be violated; the court discuss what constitutes a reasonable expectation)
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (194 (this only helps if the search was without a warrant; basically says that, without more, just because you have probable cause to get a warrant doesn't mean you have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search without consent)
Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)(if the probable cause used to get the warrant was based upon an informant, the following test applies--Spinelli Test for reasonableness of search based upon information from informant:
1) Who is the source of the information and is this source reliable?
2) If we don’t know the identity of the source, can we know that it is reliable and credible and what’s the basis of the information?)
Prandy-Binett, 995 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (if you're not in the DC circuit this isn't binding precedent, but it can be persuasive. It also states a generally accepted standard on how to determine if probable cause is present--courts like to use a "totality of the circumstances" test because it gives them the most leeway)
I was about to give you a lecture, but I'm not supposed to do that, I don't think. I'll just pray for you and also hope that, no matter what happens, you get something positive out of it. Best of luck.
