I realize LL already linked to this, but I want to highlight it again for anyone who missed it- from a 1984 court case:
Kraye testified that the marihuana found in the trunk had nothing to do with defendant's ar rest.
While Kraye testified on direct examination that he was looking straight down through the driver's window when he saw the burlap bag, it was brought out on cross-examination that there were two windows on the driver's side of this two-door car and Kraye equivocated as to which window he looked through. He stated, "I don't recall. It might have been the driver's window". On redirect examination, after he looked at a photograph of the car in evidence, which he testified was "a fair and accurate picture of the defendant's vehicle", Kraye testified that he had been looking through the rear window when he saw the burlap bag.
A (small) burlap bag. Weird coincidence.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1984689106AD2d583_1348/PEOPLE v. FEINGOLD
edited to add: Is this a thing? Would people moving large amounts of pot be in possession of large amounts of burlap for bagging? I guess I'd always assumed they'd be purchasing pre-made bags in quantity but on reflection that would probably flag them as suspicious? Anyone know the answer to this?