Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Royal Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-28-2014, 04:17 PM  
GloucesterChief GloucesterChief is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Casino cash: $7015
Brady doesn't matter when it comes to NSA evidence.

According to Judge Richard Posner, the DOJ doesn't have to share evidence gathered by the NSA to bring a suspect to trial. Note that the defendant here is one of the 'home grown terrorists' in which the FBI and informants look for people to entrap.

All, I have to say is welcome to the fascist state people. We now have secret trials with secret evidence.
Posts: 1,610
GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 06:02 PM   #16
GloucesterChief GloucesterChief is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Jan 2013
Casino cash: $7015
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
I understand that *you* want increased levels of due process, but I was asking where adversarial evidentiary hearings are required in the constitution.
They are not. The judge instead of reviewing the evidence himself should of directed the prosecution to hand it over. The judge interposing himself to determine if the evidence needs to be handed over for Brady smacks of impropriety as the two agents of the state, judge and prosecutor, are cutting out the non-state agent, the defense, in review of evidence that may impeach the state's case.

This is the reason why most judges feel, and it should be, that it is unethical to do so and usually defer to the defenses request for evidence.
Posts: 1,610
GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.GloucesterChief would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 06:04 PM   #17
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9911
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Nope.
Quit stealing my lines.
__________________
Posts: 57,692
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 06:17 PM   #18
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloucesterChief View Post
They are not. The judge instead of reviewing the evidence himself should of directed the prosecution to hand it over. The judge interposing himself to determine if the evidence needs to be handed over for Brady smacks of impropriety as the two agents of the state, judge and prosecutor, are cutting out the non-state agent, the defense, in review of evidence that may impeach the state's case.

This is the reason why most judges feel, and it should be, that it is unethical to do so and usually defer to the defenses request for evidence.
As Posner explains, this wasn't a discretionary decision. It's required by statute. So unless the statute's requirement is unconstitutional, the judge must review the evidence ex parte (with only one party) in camera (in private).

Even the concurring judge, who clearly sympathizes with your viewpoint on this, agreed with the decision. In his concurring opinion, he was raising these issues in the hope that each branch of government could look for ways to improve the process, although some of the ideas he put forward wouldn't pass your adversarial process test. For example, in cases where a warrant was issued on the basis of a statement of the defendant, he recommended that the trial judge demand to see the entire communication so he could see the statement used to get the warrant in it's proper context (to make sure it wasn't misrepresented by the requester).
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:40 AM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.