In a justice system with Mississippi ME’s and bite mark experts, Mobley gets a “profile in courage” award. This is a cop killing case. Cops will never, ever forgive him. Mobley screwed himself when he did not have to. God bless him.

I hope the RF side plays this for all it is worth. Put Mobley on the stand. “District Attorney Mobley, just so there’s no misunderstanding here, do you see that same Mr. Skeeter in the courtroom today? Would you point him out to the jury? And, for the record, that would be the handcuffed man in the prison jumpsuit? Thank you, District Attorney Mobley. Sir, can you give us some idea of what it is that you do for the people of Portsmouth? You’re in the justice business, are you not? And the way justice works in Portsmouth, District Attorneys are not allowed to put people like Mr. Skeeter there on the stand, is that correct? Why not allow Mr. Skeeter to have his say in Portsmouth? Is it because a Portsmouth jury is likely to be misinformed by persons like Mr. Skeeter?”

Again I say this not to dismiss the virtue of Mobley’s actions, but to just make sure it is discussed that this was someone fulfilling his legal obligations rather than saying “screw everybody” and doing what was in his heart.

Thanks to Tidewater Liberty and The Agitator for keeping up with the case, that has probably had a lot to do with the latest break.

Also, props to Mobley for coming forward.

There are no doubt some cases where a judge excludes evidence which a jury would have used to convict someone even if they were told to disregard it. On the other hand, I would expect that many jurors would probably balance the severity of the police misconduct versus the alleged crime; if told that it would be right and proper for them to disregard evidence from a search they find to be unreasonable, a jury could very well acquit someone for possessing a few milligrams of pot which the police only found after his house was ripped to shreds on the word of an anonymous tipster.

There’s another reason, though, that the jury should serve as a secondary check on reasonableness: if police smash into people’s homes with sufficient frequency and violence that people live in fear of the police, it may become difficult for the state to find a jury of people who regard such conduct as “reasonable”. Having to convince the public of the reasonableness of their actions would IMHO be a very useful check on the spreading totalitarian anarchism in today’s police forces.

The prosecutor and the police here seem to have some sort of belief in super-hearing powers. The jailhouse snitch can hear through glass doors and RF “should” have heard their whispering outside his house.

They have watched too many episodes of Heroes. Maybe the police know of a program whereby civilians are unknowingly being injected with a serum that will, one unknown day in the future, manifest its capabilities in the form of a superhuman ability?

It is right and proper for a judge to suppress evidence from an unreasonable search and seizure. A judge does not, however, have legitimate authority to declare that something is reasonable if twelve jurors who knew its background would declare it was not. Of course, judges often exclude as “irrelevant” evidence the defense might want to introduce to show a search was unreasonable. Such exclusion isn’t because the evidence isn’t relevant to the case at hand, but because it is relevant in a way the judge won’t like.

Somehow people have become convinced that the Supreme Court has the authority to create all-inclusive rules for what is reasonable and unreasonable, such that any search which abides by the Court’s rules is by definition “reasonable”. Not only does such a notion render the Fourth Amendment moot (since it would effectively mean nothing but what the Court wants it to mean), and not only would such a notion represent a serious breach of separation of powers (if anyone has the authority to decide upon search procedure, it would be the legislature), but it also makes no logical sense. Questions of reasonableness and unreasonableness will be affected by observations on the ground, in ways that cannot possibly be foreseen. Any general rule which would not end up classifying as “reasonable” some searches and seizures that are patently unreasonable must necessarily classify almost any search as “unreasonable”, even those which would in fact be just fine.

Of course they knew. Why else do you think they picked him and spoon fed him what to say?

The prosecutor and the police here seem to have some sort of belief in super-hearing powers. The jailhouse snitch can hear through glass doors and RF “should” have heard their whispering outside his house.

Your method would not have the results you think, either. Almost anything the police did would be reasonable to jurors if the police found actual evidence the defendant committed a crime. The whole reason the exclusion process is hidden from the jury is so the jurors will not convict on the basis of unlawfully obtained evidence. Juries have good bullshit detectors, but they care far more about rough justice than they do about the niceties of Constitutional Law.

Prosecutors across the country would love to have a system like you’re describing, where the jury got to determine whether a search was reasonable, because it would virtually eliminate any chance they would lose a case on a suppression issue.

If I were a judge, I would ensure that all defense attorneys knew that I would be very open to defense arguments that particular searches or seizures were not reasonable; I would allow the state to inform jurors of what practices are, or are not, generally considered reasonable, but I would inform jurors that because every case is different they must determine for themselves the reasonableness of police actions in the particular case at hand.

I know that such a position is not particularly supported by case law, but I can see no legitimate argument against it. The Supreme Law of the Land explicitly states that unreasonable searches and seizures are illegitimate. So a finding that any particular search or seizure is unreasonable would imply that it was illegitimate.

Would there be any legitimate argument the state could make against informing jurors that they must judge for themselves the reasonableness of police actions? Many other issues juries have to decide involve the concept of ‘reasonableness’, so I see no reason to exclude that one.

Yes. Portsmouth is surrounded by Norfolk on the East, Chesapeake on the South and West and the James River on the North.

I’d like to think swimsuit models find me irresistibly attractive. That ain’t gonna happen either.

If Norfolk knew, and Portsmouth knew, then Chesapeake surely knew. These folks work with each other more often than not, especially since their cities intertwine with each other physically.

Basically it means 1 of 3 things: 1) either he’s lying and is thus a big fat liar, and denying Mr. frederick his right to a fair trial – and prosecuotrs KNOW he is lying and have said nothing, 2) he’s incredibly stupid and sitting on valuable inculpating evidence in a cop-murder trial he sought not to trade on it – innocnet yet highly unlikely – or 3) he’s is “telling the truth” insomuch as the prosecutors and he have some sort of understanding but no tangible deal. This would allow him to testify as much truthfully, but still have confidence that later down the road he will realize some benefit for his actions. That the prosecutors would essentially wink at this scumbag but not quite cross a line where he would have to admit to having a deal in place (and thus help make their case) is so incredibly scummy and offensive it’s mind-blowing.

Sadly, options 1 or 3 seem by far the most likely and either situations necessarily invovles serious prosecutorial misconduct.

To sit on such information, he said, would be “offensive.”

But not offensive enough to go back and review convictions obtained with his testimony, I bet.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/01/frederick-case-informant-granted-bond-criminal-case