The Cyril Wecht case just gets weirder. After Wecht’s first trial ended in a hung jury, and resulted in much public criticism of U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan (runner-up in last year’s Agitator.com “Worst Prosecutor of the Year” competition), she and defense counsel met with a retired federal judge for possible mediation. Buchanan apparently then promptly violated a nondisclosure agreement by speaking to the press about the mediation. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has also removed the trial judge from the case should the government retry Wecht.
It’s good to know the town of Vero Beach is safe enough that the police have nothing better to do than to act on an anonymous tip to rush to the airport, board and search a private plane, and arrest comedian Ron White for possession of marijuana. Good thing the cops were there to protect White from hurting himself on that plane with that weed. God knows what might have happened.
Where did all my stuff go?
A sensible column on the Ryan Frederick case from Roger Chesley. One thing Chesley hints at but doesn’t come out and say: All signs indicate that the “burglars” the prosecution are putting at the center of their case against Frederick are both police informants, and that one of them was the informant in Frederick’s case. I don’t see any other reasonable explanation. The question now is how long had these guys been working for the police, and if the police knew about–or even encouraged–them to break into Frederick’s home to collect evidence.
Some incredible Polish posters for American movies.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, September 13th, 2008 at 9:32 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Police Militarization.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
I just wanted to point out to everyone, that whether the police encouraged those burglars to invade Frederick’s home will have no bearing on Frederick’s trial.
That’s not to say it’s not an important issue overall, but it doesn’t make Frederick any more or less innocent since the central issue is whether he knew the people invading were cops.
Actually, if they encouraged the break-in they broke the law and acted in bad faith, which could well invalidate the warrant. Which would mean the raid itself was illegal.
I follow you on that, Radley, and, impliedly, your next sentence would be that if the raid was illegal then he was justified (or more justified) in shooting.
I don’t think that necessarily follows because the issue is going to be whether in that moment before he fired, Frderick knew (or reasonably should have known) it was the cops. You can’t look out the window, see that it’s the cops and then say to yoursef “well they have no legal reason to invade my home so i’m gonna fire on those cops to my heart’s content and then just cry ‘illegal search’.”
Indeed, whether or nor he had marijuana in his home is relevant because then he might anticipate the raid because of his illegal activity (though even that’s a stretch). But, assuming the marijuana was there, Frederick had no way of knowing whether the people who took his marijuana were regular burglars, or burglars encouraged by cops. He had no way of knowing whether they had a warrant, or wehther that theft and any subsequent raid would be technically lawful.
In other words, the cops encouraging the burglars brings THAT burglary (search) into the purview of the 4th amendment and the subsequent warrant becomes fruit of the poisonous tree. That’s a pretty technical point that Frederick could not possibly have known and I am pretty confident that the legality of the search is only relevant insofar as it goes to what Frederick should have expected or known.
That’s my take. Does that make sense?
Did “he look out the window”?,did he “see the cops”? Who’s going to lie the most at the trial?
#4 – Don’t get me wrong. I fully support Mr. Frederick, and I’m infuriated by this whole case, which is total bullshit. Cops have no credibility anymore with anything and it’s clear that they’re looking to blame this innocent man for their eff-up.
Movie posters – DAMN! – of course, many of these make the movie look FAR more interesting than it actually is, to the point of wishing that this was indeed the case! Wow.
I sat in the courtroom the other day, listening to Mr. Ebert making his pitch for the change of venue motion. What it boiled down to was that the commonwealth couldn’t get a “fair trial” (read – conviction) because the resident jury pool had been “tainted” by speculation in the media, and internet blogs (such as this one…). From her face, I would say that Judge Arrington wasn’t buying it. She postponed her decision until the week of Oct. 27 – 31…
Next, Mr. Conway made his pitch about the “burglary,” explaining;
(1) that the “burglar(s)” only removed half of the plants, (????),
(2) that Mr. Frederick had called and threatened the burglar, saying, “I know who you are,”
(3) that Mr. Frederick also said, “I know the police are coming to my house – I have something for them, too” (or words to that effect), (this is the justification for the Charge of Premeditated Murder),
(4) that Mr. Frederick removed the other half of the plants, but left grow lights & “tubs” with residue of marijuana growth on them, in the garage, and, finally,
(5) that Mr. Frederick had magazines in his house that promoted marijuana cultivation, as well as a quantity of marijuana (1/3 oz.) and paraphernalia…
Unfortunately, I neglected to bring my hip-boots. I was, however, comforted in the knowledge that since these gentlemen had passed the bar, there was hope for us all…
#7 What’s so awesome about all that info is that when Mr. Frederick allegedly called the burglar he had to inform him that “I know who you are.” Well, jeez he had the guy’s phone number, I would figure he knew who he was. Unless he has a listing in his cell phone called “burglar.”
I’m assuming the burglar response was, “no sh!t, dude, you called me!”
I don’t think that necessarily follows because the issue is going to be whether in that moment before he fired, Frderick knew (or reasonably should have known) it was the cops.
If the government employees knew the warrant was fraudulent when they broke into Mr. Frederick’s house, any belief by Mr. Frederick that the people breaking into his house were robbers, whether or not it was ‘reasonable’, would be correct.
Has it occurred to anybody that the motive behind the marijuana charges might be to indirectly exclude people who would not automatically take the side of the police on forcible entry.
While the main issue is whether surprise forced entries are a responsible tactic, people who support drug prohibition are more likely to be deferential to authority in the way the prosecution wants them to be than are people who have doubts about drug prohibition.
It looks like an excuse for jury stacking.
Poor old Ron. He looks pretty grim in his mug shots, doesn’t he? I guess he can join Willie Nelson and Keith Richards as celebrities who were busted simply because they were celebrities.
supercat,
Like I said after-the-fact correctness is irrelevant.
Think of it this way, say a cop shot some kid who was just walking down the street minding his business, and only after the shooting did they discover the kid had a gun on him and other evidence seemed to indicate he was gonna rob a nearby store. When the cops played up those facts wouldn’t the people on this site be furious, and point out that *at the time of the shooting* the kid wasn’t doing anything wrong?
Of course this is not analogous at all to the Frederick case, but rather an exampe to show that after-the-fact correctness does not justify your actions in law or in common sense.
NickT,
At the time of the shooting, Det. Shivers wasn’t innocently strolling down the street, minding his own business. He was violently breaking and entering an occupied home. The “after-the-fact correctness” only reinforces the fact that self-defense was justified.
The detective is, at best, the victim of the felonious behavior of one or more of his colleagues. If he actively participated in fabricating the supporting evidence for the warrant, then he is in no way a victim- he got what can be reasonably be expected when breaking into an occupied home.
If cops want to continue breaking into homes to serve warrants based on perjured testimony, insisting on using surprise instead of knocking- aping the tactics of home-invasion robbers- then they should invest in body armor that doesn’t leave any pesky unprotected vital organs.
An update on the Ron White case – the pilot narced him out after Ron fired him.
http://www.local6.com/entertainment/17478971/detail.html
ron should have used a better class of private plane.
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger almost certainly widened the ranks connected with marijuana users who imagine the status quo is sufficient (and therefore didn’t hassle to vote) by deciding upon a bill last thirty day period that reduced possession of your ounce or less of marijuana to very similar to a traffic ticket, with a maximum fine of $100. Previously offenders were arrested and left which has a criminal record.