(11-04-2013, 11:04 AM)HellJacket Wrote: The problem remains that you have to prove the existence of the zombie drug, and without the Baron, that is unlikely to happen in the court of law (everything Rosalee knows about the drug is hearsay for instance, and I doubt she'd pass the legal standard for an expert witness).
Why does it have to be a Wesen-based zombie drug? Why cant they just claim its some kind of experimental psychotropic drug that was given to Nick in an extremely concentrated dose by the mysterious malefactor, Thomas Chirac?
You have the testimony of maybe ten officers that were cleaning up the "zombie farm" at the storage yard. You have the testimony of all the zombies themselves that were cured and had no memory of their actions while under its effects. You have Rosalie, who could at least give some testimony as to its general pharmacology. The existence of _a_ drug is clearly established, the problem only lies in describing the nature of the drug (magical vs pharmaceutical) - but, really, that's immaterial as far as the case against Nick...he wouldn't have to determine what the drug is, only demonstrate what it does.
Burden of proof is on the prosecution, after all, and I think all that is more than enough to establish reasonable doubt - I don't think the DA would even seek to indict in a case like this, especially not with a cop of Nick's stature, with absolutely no motive to try and argue for.