Judge to rule Aug. 18 in Muse slot machine case

Published: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 06:26 PM.

Clemmons contended in his closing argument that the state had presented insufficient evidence of ownership of the machines.

“There was no evidence that my client owned any of the machines,” Clemmons said. “All of the agents testified they didn’t know who owned the machines.”

Clemmons also said that the machines were not operational at the time they were confiscated by police in an October 2013 raid, which means the machines aren’t illegal. He also contended that the machines were operated for amusement and required skill and dexterity by the players, which would make them legal.

Clemmons maintained that Muse had no intent to break the law and had gone to the city of Havelock to get a license for the machines.

“The city of Havelock through its government officials told Mr. Muse that he could put these machines in the city of Havelock. What he had to do was pay a privilege license,” Clemmons said. “That just stinks to high heaven, that a government would charge them (fees) for something that they said was legal and then go charge them (with criminal violations) for them.”

Chesnutt added in closing that the state simply didn’t prove its case.

“I can’t match the dots up from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty,” he said.

1 2 3 4

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.

▲ Return to Top