Comments on: In Which You Discover Only What The State Thinks You Should

By: Leon Wolfeson

Leon Wolfeson — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 04:21:37 +0000

@24 – You need convictions to be re-elected for these jobs. Do the math…”tough on crime” works, especially when you can deploy phrases like “think of the children” against anyone suggesting LESS prosecutions.

Again, not a problem for a civil service where you’re not paid or promoted directly in line with your prosecution rate.

By: David

David — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:35:10 +0000

The Constitution for the United States does no such thing. While so dumbass court claim such, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that requires such.

“Due process of law” means something to the court system, even if that meaning is less and less with each passing year.

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:57:56 +0000

Dave, your argument without a doubt can work both ways. It is important for both sides to have all the evidence. Allow the defense to determine what is important or not to his or her case after all, and I mean all the evidence is available to both sides.

By: Personanongrata

Personanongrata — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:07:57 +0000

I wonder whats in the water cooler at the LA County DA’s Office.

These folks are seriously deluded if they believe erecting gatekeepers to guard against the flow of excupatory/impeaching evidence is in keeping with
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

By: rmv

rmv — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:27:14 +0000

@19 dwb

Read the first couple of links

By: Weird Willy

Weird Willy — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:22:02 +0000

“QUICK! Someone put these noble folk in charge of our health care!”

Boyd, that would require that we allow the staff of the LADA’s office both to prohibit the provision of health care through means that they do not control and to administer all remaining health care delivery mechanisms. Why in the world would we want to do that?

By: Bergman

Bergman — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:40:31 +0000

Re: Yizmo Gizmo, #8:

Always remember one thing when dealing with ANYONE:

If nobody ever broke the law, nobody would have ever invented police.

Assuming that because police enforce the law they somehow cease to be human is foolish, at best.

By: Windy

Windy — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:28:45 +0000

“Prosecutors are culturally prone to believe government witnesses and disbelieve accusations against them; it’s patently ridiculous to make them the gatekeepers of what damaging information is sufficiently credible to be turned over to the defense.”

This bias might be prevented if my idea were to take hold, a requirement that any attorney seeking to become a prosecutor must first have 10 years of active criminal defense under his/her belt.

It seems to me that would ensure that all prosecutors would have had experience with cops testilying and other prosecutorial tricks designed to diminish the effects of 4th Amendment concerns, so they would not be quite so gullible about cops and other government witnesses, and they’d also have a better understanding of how innocent defendants are often railroaded by the prosecution into pleas because they are frightened of a trial, and would instill greater compassion for defendants in future prosecutors.

By: dwb

dwb — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 05:45:52 +0000

The Constitution for the United States does no such thing. While so dumbass court claim such, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that requires such.

The Constitution is rules for the operation of the federal government and is nothing more. The Constitution does not concern itself with individuals outside the limitations expressed in the Bill of Rights.

Before you make a s2pid statement, learn what the Constitution does and does not state.

By: John Pomeroy

John Pomeroy — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:48:56 +0000

#7 Dante,

Didn’t Holder make a similar statement in regards to KSM and his New York City trial? Because after all, we wouldn’t have detained him, her, them if he, she, they weren’t guilty now would we?

By: Burgers Allday

Burgers Allday — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:38:12 +0000

OT alert (sorry, Mr. K. White, I understand that this is an articulate and informed post on an important subject):

http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/5827342-Fla-deputies-shoot-kill-wrong-suspect/

welcome to Iraq, my Totski’s!

By: Leon Wolfeson

Leon Wolfeson — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:05:15 +0000

No, it’s what happens when you don’t use a properly professional force of prosecutors, but rather elect them.

By: Allen

Allen — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:02:01 +0000

What, did they go to the Kern County School of Prosecution? Ed Jagels would be proud.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:47:32 +0000

Where’s Obama furiously vowing to fight this unAmerican jive?

He’s on the Kiss-Cam and posing for steamy pics of himself in the rain (which seem to get all the neckbeards’ panties wet on Reddit and other places).

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:45:39 +0000

QUICK! Someone put these noble folk in charge of our health care!

By: The Late Andy Rooney

The Late Andy Rooney — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:24:24 +0000

#8: For folks who don’t already know, Lael Rubin was one of the prosecutors in the infamous McMartin Case.

By: stlgonzo

stlgonzo — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:16:08 +0000

Dave Krueger, I actually did laugh out loud. Then I cried a little bit.

By: el coronado

el coronado — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:12:24 +0000

Where’s the DOJ in all this? The same DOJ that routinely files suits against states, municipalities, etc., that – in the opinion of the DOJ – violates the civil rights of the poor, downtrodden, yadda yadda yadda.

Where’s Holder making an outraged speech? Where’s Obama furiously vowing to fight this unAmerican jive? Boxer? DiFi? Pelosi? Brown? Hell, where’s LA’s famously liberal *mayor*?? I thought they cared about the little guy! I mean, that’s what they SAY, right?

By: johnl

johnl — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:50:35 +0000

Lael Rubin was involved in the development of LADA’s Brady Compliance procedures. So you would hardly expect transparency or fairness.

By: Yizmo Gizmo

Yizmo Gizmo — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:48:48 +0000

We know from Carlos Miller et al that when it comes to
video evidence, the cops’ account of what happens rarely
matches what happens, and that cops routinely try to delete
video footage of arrests, detentions, etc…
Are these the people we are trusting to hand over exculpatory evidence because they are “supposed to”?