So, I have returned from vacation in Siberia. It was a nice visit, but the winters are so very cold there.
Seems to me that Senator Edwards has just lost his trial:
"Christina Reynolds, a former Edwards communications adviser and friend of his wife, told of the couple's confrontation a day after a supermarket tabloid published an article about his affair.
The National Inquirer had revealed purported details of Mr Edwards' relationship with Rielle Hunter, who became pregnant with his child.
Ms Reynolds, 37, said the row happened at Raleigh-Durham International Airport in North Carolina in October 2007.
The court heard that Mrs Edwards stormed off and collapsed outside a private aircraft hangar.
Ms Reynolds said that she, along with another woman, helped Mrs Edwards get to a bathroom and calmed her down, but Mrs Edwards went outside again to find her husband.
Ms Reynolds said Mrs Edwards had screamed: "You don't see me any more." Then she took off her shirt and bra, exposing herself to her husband in front of his staff, the court heard.
"He didn't have much of a reaction," Ms Reynolds said."
I am not really sure how in the hell that testimony could possibly relate to the charges in the case, but it is federal court and under the Federal Rules of Evidence, anything the prosecution wants to offer that will tend to make a defendant look like a dirt bag is admissible.
Me thinks its time for Edwards to try and take a plea...the jury must really hate him.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Eleventh Circuit reigns in 404(b) in drug conspriacies!!!
"Allowing the government to admit such a remote and factually dissimilar conviction would effectively create a per se rule of admissibility of any prior drug conviction in drug conspiracy cases—no matter how old or how different."
US v. Sanders
Too bad for the defendant that the harmless error automatons were at work:
"Because Sanders’s prior 1988 conviction involving 1.4 grams of marijuana had so little, if any, probative value, the district court abused its discretion by admitting the conviction.
Nevertheless, the paucity of probative value creates an additional problem for Sanders—the remoteness and dissimilarity of the prior conviction not only decreases the probative value to show intent but also diminishes the potential for unfair prejudice."
In other words - if the government can convince a judge to allow it to present to the jury...in a drug conspiracy trial...that the defendant was previously involved in drug dealing, it doesn't matter that the admission was erroneous because to be an erroneous admission the evidence has to have little probative value and therefore cannot constitute harmful prejudice!!!"
In other other words - we are wiping our butts with the thought that any defendant could possibly gain a reversal based upon the improper admission of 404(b) in a drug case...ever.
Also gotta love the presumption that law abiding citizens would never find that a guy who is a previously convicted drug dealer may be more likely to be a drug dealer:
"In other words, the prior conviction was so old and dissimilar that it is unlikely that the jury convicted Sanders because of the prior conviction, either because the jury believed Sanders should still be in jail for the prior conviction, or because the conviction demonstrates a propensity to transport large quantities of drugs in a tractor–trailer from Texas to North Carolina."
Why then would the government have wanted to offer it in the first place? What happened to not delving into jury deliberations???
Sucks to be in front of this Court of Affirmation.
US v. Sanders
Too bad for the defendant that the harmless error automatons were at work:
"Because Sanders’s prior 1988 conviction involving 1.4 grams of marijuana had so little, if any, probative value, the district court abused its discretion by admitting the conviction.
Nevertheless, the paucity of probative value creates an additional problem for Sanders—the remoteness and dissimilarity of the prior conviction not only decreases the probative value to show intent but also diminishes the potential for unfair prejudice."
In other words - if the government can convince a judge to allow it to present to the jury...in a drug conspiracy trial...that the defendant was previously involved in drug dealing, it doesn't matter that the admission was erroneous because to be an erroneous admission the evidence has to have little probative value and therefore cannot constitute harmful prejudice!!!"
In other other words - we are wiping our butts with the thought that any defendant could possibly gain a reversal based upon the improper admission of 404(b) in a drug case...ever.
Also gotta love the presumption that law abiding citizens would never find that a guy who is a previously convicted drug dealer may be more likely to be a drug dealer:
"In other words, the prior conviction was so old and dissimilar that it is unlikely that the jury convicted Sanders because of the prior conviction, either because the jury believed Sanders should still be in jail for the prior conviction, or because the conviction demonstrates a propensity to transport large quantities of drugs in a tractor–trailer from Texas to North Carolina."
Why then would the government have wanted to offer it in the first place? What happened to not delving into jury deliberations???
Sucks to be in front of this Court of Affirmation.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Move over Wong Sun, the Spanish have something better than the exclusionairy rule!
That's right, Spain, that great nation that has given us such niceties as the inquisition, the Spanish tickler, the Garotte, and the completed genocide of the Arawak, have brought something to the modern world that may actually be laudable:
Attempting to hold those involved in illegal searches accountable criminally.
"Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish judge who famously indicted late Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet, has found himself in the dock for the first time.
He went on trial at the supreme court in Madrid charged with illegally authorizing police to bug the conversations of lawyers with clients.
....
The judge is accused of overstepping his authority by ordering the recording of prison conversations between three defendants and their lawyers.
Wait - doesn't that happen at FDC every day?
The prosecution is actually not as great as one might think. It is a private prosecution - the same thing that some Spaniards tried to do against Dick Cheney and George W. Bush (which I would support), and is probably tied to the fact that Garzon has been a bit of a renegade when it comes to targeting those that carry themselves as above the law. In Spain, Judges serve as investigating forces in criminal prosecutions - similar to a grand jury.
But, wouldn't it be nice if one day, law enforcement personnel who violate the Fourth Amendment actually faced some repercussions instead of just suppression?
Attempting to hold those involved in illegal searches accountable criminally.
"Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish judge who famously indicted late Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet, has found himself in the dock for the first time.
He went on trial at the supreme court in Madrid charged with illegally authorizing police to bug the conversations of lawyers with clients.
....
The judge is accused of overstepping his authority by ordering the recording of prison conversations between three defendants and their lawyers.
Wait - doesn't that happen at FDC every day?
The prosecution is actually not as great as one might think. It is a private prosecution - the same thing that some Spaniards tried to do against Dick Cheney and George W. Bush (which I would support), and is probably tied to the fact that Garzon has been a bit of a renegade when it comes to targeting those that carry themselves as above the law. In Spain, Judges serve as investigating forces in criminal prosecutions - similar to a grand jury.
But, wouldn't it be nice if one day, law enforcement personnel who violate the Fourth Amendment actually faced some repercussions instead of just suppression?
Friday, January 13, 2012
Cannibals!
I am having so much fun watching the Republicans devour their own. Here is a clip of an ad attacking Romney as a liberal, and then pointing out in derogatory fashion that "...he speaks French too!"
To this I say: Quel crétin pourrait éventuellement accepter qu'il est mauvais d'être éduqués et parlent une langue étrangère? Ne cherchez pas plus loin que l'audiance cible!
To this I say: Quel crétin pourrait éventuellement accepter qu'il est mauvais d'être éduqués et parlent une langue étrangère? Ne cherchez pas plus loin que l'audiance cible!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Indecision 2012 - Black to the Future | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Our corner of the Universe
Astronomers are now reporting that they believe that in the Milky Way there are 100 billion planetary solar systems - stars that have planets orbiting them.
If you consider that there are believed to be in excess of 170 billion galaxies in the universe, you can really begin to appreciate the significance of the announcement. This is especially so because we are still finding new life on Earth ("World's smallest frog discovered").
Given that humans have been seeking to communicate with extraterrestrial life since the beginning of recorded history, the announcement is quite exciting. We should assume that other life in the Galaxy would be trying to communicate with outside life as well. The question that we should now be looking into is how would a far more advanced life try to do it? Certainly we will continue to develop better ways of "looking" across great distances to learn of the existence of these extraterrestrial systems, but knowing they are there and having an effective way of trying to communicate are very different.
Anyhow, not really related to the law, but interesting stuff, now I will focus on how to communicate with some AUSA re the true meaning of Brady, a task that is far more daunting than reaching ET.
In other news...it is okay to kill a bunch of enemy combatants in war, but God help you if you pee on their dead bodies! Seems a bit confusing to me if you really think about it.
If you consider that there are believed to be in excess of 170 billion galaxies in the universe, you can really begin to appreciate the significance of the announcement. This is especially so because we are still finding new life on Earth ("World's smallest frog discovered").
Given that humans have been seeking to communicate with extraterrestrial life since the beginning of recorded history, the announcement is quite exciting. We should assume that other life in the Galaxy would be trying to communicate with outside life as well. The question that we should now be looking into is how would a far more advanced life try to do it? Certainly we will continue to develop better ways of "looking" across great distances to learn of the existence of these extraterrestrial systems, but knowing they are there and having an effective way of trying to communicate are very different.
Anyhow, not really related to the law, but interesting stuff, now I will focus on how to communicate with some AUSA re the true meaning of Brady, a task that is far more daunting than reaching ET.
In other news...it is okay to kill a bunch of enemy combatants in war, but God help you if you pee on their dead bodies! Seems a bit confusing to me if you really think about it.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Trading Drugs for Guns is a no no!
Turns out that trading drugs for guns in the 11th Circuit will qualify for prosecution under 18 u.s.c. 924(c), for "possession" as opposed to "use" of a firearm. Seems reasonable. Good on ya Pryor!
Monday, January 9, 2012
What is a "Person"?
"My head knocks against the stars.
The Ninth Circuit took 64 pages to debate the question of what a "person" is...en banc, and still did not arrive at a consensus (spoiler - "person" means a real person). All the more reason for Rick Santorum to follow through with his threat to disband the 9th!
I think it would have been more fun if Kozinski wrote a one-page "who am I" poem.
As issue is 18 u.s.c. 876(c), which deals with mailing threats to persons. From the dissent:
"Disagreeing, the majority concludes that Havelock’s manifesto was not addressed to natural persons because it indicates nothing about the identity of any individual person to whom the communication supposedly was addressed. Unlike the majority, however, I can find nothing in § 876(c) that precludes liability when a threatening communication is addressed to, and threatens mass murder against, a community rather than a specific individual. I also can think of no reason why Congress would not have been concerned about threats
to commit mass murder. I would therefore hold that Havelock’s communications were addressed to natural persons."
It is an interesting read, if for not other reason than to ponder why a man who showed up at the Superbowl with a newly purchased AR-15 and lots of ammo, was not prosecuted for a terrorism related offense - there will be a quiz next week to see if you can figure out the answer.
Here is a link to the opinion: US v. Kurt Havelock
My feet are on the hilltops.
My finger-tips are in the valleys and shores of universal life.
Down in the sounding foam of primal things I reach my hands and play with pebbles of destiny.
I have been to hell and back many times.
I know all about heaven, for I have talked with God.
I dabble in the blood and guts of the terrible.
I know the passionate seizure of beauty
And the marvelous rebellion of man at all signs reading "Keep Off."
My name is Truth and I am the most elusive captive in the universe"
- Carl Sandburg
The Ninth Circuit took 64 pages to debate the question of what a "person" is...en banc, and still did not arrive at a consensus (spoiler - "person" means a real person). All the more reason for Rick Santorum to follow through with his threat to disband the 9th!
I think it would have been more fun if Kozinski wrote a one-page "who am I" poem.
As issue is 18 u.s.c. 876(c), which deals with mailing threats to persons. From the dissent:
"Disagreeing, the majority concludes that Havelock’s manifesto was not addressed to natural persons because it indicates nothing about the identity of any individual person to whom the communication supposedly was addressed. Unlike the majority, however, I can find nothing in § 876(c) that precludes liability when a threatening communication is addressed to, and threatens mass murder against, a community rather than a specific individual. I also can think of no reason why Congress would not have been concerned about threats
to commit mass murder. I would therefore hold that Havelock’s communications were addressed to natural persons."
It is an interesting read, if for not other reason than to ponder why a man who showed up at the Superbowl with a newly purchased AR-15 and lots of ammo, was not prosecuted for a terrorism related offense - there will be a quiz next week to see if you can figure out the answer.
Here is a link to the opinion: US v. Kurt Havelock
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)