From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:21:18 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: This is a listed crime?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980922231717.0090ba10@idiom.com>
Message-ID: <v03130312b22ef9560576@[209.133.20.24]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 12:04 AM -0700 9/23/98, attila wrote:

>    Duncan is correct in that they can not make you talk; but as
>    you point out, there is the 48 hour issue, and bogus charges
>    which are throwaways, if need be. they are the keeper, you are
>    the kept.
>
>    that was part of the point I was making; but they can also charge
>    you with obstruction of justice which is one of those were you
>    are really left with the burden of proof, not them. it is a whole
>    easier to defend a guilty party than it is to defend a party who
>    been unjustly charged --as a form of coercion or politics. if their
>    is no guilt, on what basis do you defend other than mistaken
>    identity and the corrupt officers are firm in their ID --you?

I believe this misstates the actual role of "obstruction of justice."

So far as I know, and I admit that I am not a lawyer and am not current on
case law, one cannot be charged with "obstruction of justice" for remaining
silent. O.J. Simpson, for example, was not charged thusly for not talking
(he of course stopped talking a few days after the murders, gave no further
interviews with the police and DA, and of course never testified in court).

Even Slick Willy is only being charged (by Starr) with obstruction of
justice for using his office to send out his underlings to propagate his
lies, and various things related to using his office to impede Starr's
investigation.

Merely asserting Fifth Amendment protections and Miranda rights should not,
except in Wonderland, trigger "obstruction of justice" charges. Though
we're almost in Wonderland, we're not quite there yet.

>    jury nullication is a serious risk.  judges believe they have the
>    right to define the rules under which you vote and are likely to
>    order serious sanctions or even time for defying his house rules.
>    I view it as a matter of Constitutional right and the choice of
>    arriving at the gate with the truth in hand.  I expect prosecutors
>    are including questions on nullification more often.  Aspen, or
>    Denver has a case know where a judge is nailing a juror who did not
>    volunteer the information she was an advocate of juror's right
>    -she did what I would suggest: showed up non-descript, and sat
>    there dumb and happy, and never objected to anything. it is
>    highly questionable that she was silent with the intention of
>    impeding justice.

I'll be interested to hear the outcome of this case.

I haven't been called as a juror since 25 years ago, but I certainly don't
plan to "volunteer" any information not requested of me. (And I may decide
not to even answer some questions they _do_ ask me. How we have come to a
situation where a court and jury consultants may ask highly personal
questions of prospective jurors is a sign of the train wreck that America
has become.)

--Tim May

(This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.)
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.