[throwaway729]

> There was never a caffeine charge.

Also, the defendent's attorney has an excellent response to this claim in the article:

"Barrett counters that if the prosecution has evidence of a different drug in her client’s system, it should have to provided that to her, based on the rules governing criminal procedings."

Basically, "either you're charging my client for caffeine, or else you're charging my client without anything even close to resembling a reasonable evidentiary basis, or else you're not following the rules governing criminal proceedings. In each of those cases, the charges should be thrown out."