In a recent court session, defense attorney arguments centered around the implications of evidence related to a case involving Mr. Chisholm, who is facing drug-related charges. The attorney highlighted discrepancies in the prosecution's claims, particularly regarding the connection between scales found in the vehicle and cocaine. The defense contended that the jury did not find these items to be inextricably linked, suggesting that the scales could not definitively indicate drug possession.

The attorney emphasized the size of the items in question, noting that both a small firearm and a quantity of cocaine—specifically, 6 grams—could easily fit in Mr. Chisholm's pocket. This raised questions about the logical inferences drawn by the state regarding possession. The defense argued that Mr. Chisholm was not under the influence of the substances found in the car and pointed out that the state failed to test the scales for cocaine residue.

Additionally, the defense brought attention to the presence of other drugs in the possession of Ms. Kelly, who was also involved in the case. The attorney indicated that the search of the vehicle was predicated on her having unprescribed medications, which could complicate the narrative of Mr. Chisholm's involvement.

The defense also criticized the prosecution for not obtaining video evidence from the Pilot Travel Center, which could have clarified the timeline and circumstances surrounding the incident. The attorney argued that many assumptions made by the state were unfounded, particularly regarding the nature of Mr. Chisholm's relationship to the firearm and the drugs.

Overall, the defense's position is that the evidence does not support the charges against Mr. Chisholm, urging the court to consider the reasonable inferences that suggest he was not the owner of the gun or the drugs found in the vehicle.