From: attila <attila@hun.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:07:46 +0800
To: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: This is a listed crime?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980922231717.0090ba10@idiom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980923062644.5574F-100000@hun.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Bill Stewart wrote:

>At 02:39 PM 9/21/98 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>>False.  You are never required to talk to a peace officer, Fed, or
>>investigator unless you want to.  They can arrest you of course (with
>>probable cause ha ha).  Even then, you still don't have to talk to them.
>>In criminal cases you *never* have to talk to anyone.
>
>The Supremes have, unfortunately, decided that police can hold you
>for up to 48 hours without getting around to charging you,
>and if there's a weekend around they can often stretch that.
>Some cops find that an interesting answer to the question
>"You've read me my Miranda rights and now you're insisting
>that I tell you what you want before I can speak to my lawyer who's
>in the next room?" "Yup, you can be as silent as you want in the
>county jail, and [since we're charging you with a bogus municipal charge anyway],
>we can charge you with a [bogus] misdemeanor instead.",
>which had a certain craftiness I hadn't really expected out of them :-)
>
>
>				Thanks! 
>					Bill

    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?

    as a related issue, the public often rails against a judge who
    releases more than average for technical reasons; I dont agree:
    the judge is just more honest and expects "lawless" and LEOs
    to obey the rules.

    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.

    what most Americans are just beginning to grok is that LEOs and
    the Judges are part of an ongoing enterprise which in theory is
    designed to protect us from the forces of evil. however, it must
    be considered that the person on trial is facing a "me v.them"
    arrangement of convenience.

	attila out...