South Dakota question
 

Is that a prosecutor different from the state AG who presumably has already taken a contrary position?

South Dakota question
 

Probably. And also definitely.

First (probably), I don't know anything about South Dakota, but in the states I am familiar with the State Attorney General doesn't get to dictate how local District Attorneys apply their prosecutorial discretion. This is why, for example, some counties in California charge every possible "strike" under the Three Strikes law, why some counties never seek the death penalty, etc. If the AG could dictate to local DAs, then enforcement and application of criminal statutes would be a lot more uniform within each state than it really is, as far as I know.

Second (definitely), I don't know anything about South Dakota, but unless their AG's office has found a way around things like elections, retirement, and death, it seems likely that a different AG may come in at some point, with different views of the law.



edited to clear up typo so the grammar timmies won't wet themselves.

Be that as it may, my question to you was about the benefit side of the analysis, not the costs. I'm asking why basis you have for thinking that other countries do a good job of protecting a right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

I understand that you think this, but on what basis? That was my question.

Maybe they just have lower expectations, right?

That wasn't my question. If you don't value the benefits -- i.e., the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment -- much, fine, but some of us do.

Um, no. If you banned the sale of baguettes in Cincinnati, I wager there would be little outcry. If you did so in Paris, the government would fall. The difference has nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of baguettes.

South Dakota question
 

I guess you have a point. The death penalty case against him was always going to be a very tough sell, because they had to show that IF he had spilled the beans the government could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

That said, I am just astounded that it was a senior attorney (51 y/o), not a neophyte -- and that among her misconduct she: (a) just flat-out violated a Court order by showing trial transcripts to the planned witnesses; (b) coached them in writing in a pretty blatant manner; and (c) flat-out lied to the DOJ prosecutors by saying that the TSA witnesses refused to meet with defense counsel when she had never even asked them. [The last point coming to light only at the hearing on the first point.]

It is also remarkable that she bugged her people enough that one called the DOJ prosecution team to report the communications. This goes beyond a bungle; it is extraordinary misconduct. Judge Brinkema personally read Martin her Miranda rights after she took the stand -- which led to her refusing to testify. This will cost the lady her job, and perhaps her license.

The prosecution team must want to skin her alive.

S_A_M

South Dakota question
 

According to reports, she's been put on leave at the TSA.

There was an article yesterday that had her mother saying that she must have been concentrating on something else when the judge gave the order not to give transcripts to the witnesses. Given that the order was written, and if the Rule had been invoked is a pretty basic admonition, I can't imagine how she thought it would have been ok to forward transcripts to witnesses.

I do have to admire the witnesses for bringing the e-mails to the attention of the prosecution, though.

I imagine her lawyer will be telling her mother to shut the fuck up from here on out.

South Dakota question
 

Probably not, even with a suitable recess -- particularly given that the old witnesses were sticken due to government misconduct.

RT -- the prosecutors can appeal, but the DJ has broad discretion to impose sanctions for trial misconduct and the violation of its orders. It is tough to show abuse of discretion -- particularly when the Court did not technically do anything more than bar the witnesses directly related to the misconduct.

To address Spanky's anticipated concern -- (a) the 4th Amendment has nothing to do with this; and (b) the guy will get a minimum of Life w/o Parole under his guilty plea. This is the sentencing phase of the case.

South Dakota question
 

Such an order is not uncommon.

S_A_M

Not if they gave away cake.

Hmmmm, baguettes in Cincinnati are of far lower quality than those available on almost any street in the City of Lights. Perhaps that weakens your argument?

See, Ty? That's where you are wrong. While initially Spanky may have said the question was whether other countries didn't do as good a job protecting their citizens against unreasonable search and seizure, NOW the only relevant question is whether they see "massive police misconduct."

Ya' gotta keep up.

(I think we're also no longer using 30-year old movies as "support." What's really sad is that this means Spanky's posts have even less support than before.)

South Dakota question
 

The prosecution suggested to the court that her conduct may have been criminal.

Why do you hate America? If you like France that much, why don't you move there?

Putting aside the "countrys" thing, I'd love to know why in Spankyland Child and Police are proper names. Child when used as an adjective even. Fascinating.

I'd be afraid of police searching my stuff all the time- but no worries! 4 words: Timeshare near Epcot Center!

South Dakota question
 

Once again, let me be the first to advocate corporal punishment. This wouldn't happen if we'd just cut off the fingers she used to forward those documents.