[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.23.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”115px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.23.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”-76px|auto||auto||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.23.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.24.0″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”|||-85px||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]

Given the serious nature of the charges against Javontay Kinder, his defense attorneys might employ several strategies to challenge the allegations and mitigate his legal situation. Here are some potential defenses:

1. Questioning the Causation

The defense could argue that the prosecution cannot definitively prove that the fentanyl allegedly sold by Kinder was the direct cause of Twiehaus’ death. This might involve:

• Examining the toxicology report: Highlighting the presence of other drugs in Twiehaus’ system that could have contributed to or caused his death.
• Introducing alternative sources: Suggesting that Twiehaus may have obtained the lethal dose of fentanyl from another source.

2. Challenging the Evidence

The defense may scrutinize the evidence presented by the prosecution, including:

• License plate readers: Questioning the reliability and accuracy of the technology used to track Kinder’s vehicle.
• Text messages: Arguing that the text messages do not conclusively prove a transaction took place or that the messages referred to the specific fentanyl that led to the overdose.
• CashApp transaction: Contesting the interpretation of the transaction, suggesting it could have been for something other than drugs.

3. Insufficient Proof of Sale

The defense could argue that there is insufficient proof that Kinder sold fentanyl to Twiehaus. This might involve:

• Disputing eyewitness testimony: If there are any witnesses, the defense might question their credibility or accuracy.
• Alibi evidence: Presenting evidence that Kinder was not at the scene or involved in the transaction on the date in question.

4. Entrapment

If applicable, the defense could argue that Kinder was coerced or entrapped by law enforcement into selling drugs. This would involve:

• Examining law enforcement conduct: Investigating whether narcotics agents engaged in entrapment practices, such as coercing or enticing Kinder to sell drugs under circumstances he would not have otherwise participated in.

5. Lack of Knowledge

The defense might argue that Kinder did not know the substance he allegedly sold was fentanyl. This could involve:

• Mistaken substance: Claiming that Kinder believed he was selling a different, less dangerous substance and had no knowledge of the presence of fentanyl.
• Absence of intent: Arguing that Kinder did not intend to sell a lethal substance and had no reason to believe that the substance would cause harm.

6. Chain of Custody Issues

The defense could challenge the handling of evidence by law enforcement, arguing that:

• Evidence mishandling: There were breaches in the chain of custody, leading to questions about the integrity and authenticity of the evidence.
• Tampering or contamination: Suggesting that the evidence could have been tampered with or contaminated during the investigation.

7. Mitigating Circumstances

While not a direct defense, the attorneys might present mitigating circumstances to reduce Kinder’s culpability or the severity of the punishment. This could include:

• Character witnesses: Bringing forward people who can vouch for Kinder’s character and argue for a lesser sentence.
• Circumstantial factors: Highlighting any factors in Kinder’s life that might have contributed to his alleged involvement in drug activity, such as economic hardship or lack of prior criminal history.

Conclusion

The case against Javontay Kinder involves serious charges that require a comprehensive defense strategy. By questioning the causation, challenging the evidence, arguing insufficient proof of sale, and exploring defenses such as entrapment and lack of knowledge, the defense aims to create reasonable doubt about Kinder’s guilt. The effectiveness of these strategies will depend on the defense’s ability to present these arguments persuasively and the court’s interpretation of the evidence.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]