If the pants don’t fit, must you acquit?!

The Court of Appeal recently rejected an accused’s appeal against conviction in circumstances where police executed a warrant on Mr. Albert Brown’s residence and located a large quantity of cocaine. The investigating officer testified that a pair of pants that were found on the floor of the apartment could fit the accused; evidence which would tie him to the residence. The accused argued that the trial judge’s evidentiary finding on this point was unreasonable. Interestingly, the Court found that, in determining whether the trial judge’s finding was reasonable, the fact that Mr. Brown did not testify could be taken into account, as there was no innocent explanation offered to explain the existence of the drugs (such as that they belonged to another individual).