Terrorism Cases:
(1) The computer science professor who is charged with supporting terrorism has gotten the judge to fire his court-appointed attorneys. He is living on the prayer that many a Defendant has, that someone will get him "a paid attorney." It hasn't happened yet and the judge tried hard to dissuade him; the judge pointed out that if the money doesn't come thru the professor will have to defend himself. The professor "admitted he is not versed in racketeering and conspiracy laws, federal sentencing guidelines or court rules" but said he was a quick study and he was confident he could learn (from jail, with limited access to a law library).
I feel sorry for the judge - that case is now a disaster in progress. Short of other attorneys stepping forward all he can really do is watch the train wreck as experienced prosecutors run right over a pro se Defendant.
(2) The House has voted to stop "sneak-and-peek" warrants and Justice is not happy.
Justice officials are notably upset about new advertisements from the American Civil Liberties Union that include the assertion the law "allows government agents to secretly search your house and not even tell you."That's because the truth hurts. Do I think Justice currently intends to seriously abuse this law? No. Do I think that if this becomes settled law it will fall into the "give an inch take a mile" syndrome which is so common in law enforcement? Yes. They'll stretch it just a little bit to get that member of Ga'amiat Islamia, then just a little further to get that 3d generation Irish-American mob boss who's supporting the IRA, then just a little further to get that pharmacist who hasn't been reporting income from selling drugs to the mob boss' underling which ended up in a deal for guns that went to the IRA, then just a little further . . .
(3) The NYTimes parses the decision I cited to here.
~
No comments:
Post a Comment