NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/rape/1708

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-23 | 5.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!caen!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!news.u.washington.edu!plains!hennebry
From: [e-mail] (Michael J. Hennebry)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rage (story)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:19:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
Lines: 106

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
<In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael J. Hennebry) writes:
<> <
<> <What due process rights are you taking about? ...
<>
<> Ever hear of RICO?
<
<Yep. States a criminal cannot keep his ill-gotten fortune. What about it?

DC, you ignorant slut, where have you been living, the far side of the
moon? RICO also allows the government to call anyone its wants a
criminal and take away anything and everything. It the rare event
something is eventually returned it's been subjected to such malign
neglect that it's useless. I guess that wasn't mentioned in your
procedures class.

<> <...                                           What right to confront
<> <one's accuser has been compromised? ...
<>
<> When children testify the defendant is sometimes replaced by a video
<> camera. The witness doesn't see the person the state is trying to
<> destroy.
<
<So? Right of confrontation is the accused's right to know who, and interrogate
<the witness themselves. I don't recall any right for the accused to demand that
<the interrogation take place in a court room. Unless you have a different
<cosntitution than the one the rest of us have been using...

The interrogation can take place in Joel Fleischman's living room for
all I care. If trial testimony is being taken there, it is a courtroom.
           The witness doesn't see the person the state is trying to
   destroy.
That is the primary difference between being allowed to confront, to use
the constitution's word, one's accuser and just seeing him or her on TV.
Also the defendant doesn't get to ask his own questions.

[on trial by jury]
<> At least one state supreme court justice refered to the phenomenon as
<> "guilty anyway". I call it "the insanity offense". The prosecution can
<> do what ever illegal and constitiutional crap it feels like and when
<> it gets to the appeals court the appeals court decides that the
<> defendant was so obviously guilty anyway that he doesn't deserve or
<> get a new trial. Juries are supposed to decide whether a particular
<> set of evidence is good enough for conviction. I think the justice
<> was from Virginia.
<
<Totally off base. There is the doctrine of harmless error, which states that

The doctrine of harmless error when applied to unlawful and unconstitional
deeds which are neither harmless nor error is judicial corruption.

To call deliberate misconduct harmless requires the assumption that
the prosecutor is at least incompetent. That is why I call it the
insanity offense.

<if the evidence was so overwhelming that the error in question was harmless
<(i.e. defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt in the appellate court's mind, would
<still have been convicted if the evidence had properly been excluded) then the
<conviction stands this NEVER apllies to errors which udermine the judicial

The jury's mind is the mind that is supposed to count, not the appellate
court's. That's why it's called "trial by jury" not "trial by appellate
court". They can have quite different ideas about what doubt is reasonable.
See Simi Valley vs Rodney King.

<> She probably gave her name and address to a grand jury before she
<> thought of asking for immunity. Then she had to testify without
<> immunity about anything that happened while she had that name or address.

DC deleted the part where I wrote that I was probably exaggerating a little.

<Jesus Bucko, are you reading your criminal procudre from a Lucky Charms box???

Cracker Jacks, from an old family recipe.

<She had to testify as to anything regarding that name or address???
<The appellate court will probably uphold the conviction??? You are paraniod,
<and you are basing your opinions on myth.
<
<Yes, I suppose if someone willfuly waives their right against
<self-incrimination, they can then incriminate themselves. All she has to do is
<state her fifth amendment right BEFORE she incriminates herself!!!

Frequently this means that she must do so before she suspects that she
is a suspect.

I have heard of at least one case where a sister was convicted for standing
and watching while her brother killed their father. So far
as I know there was no dispute as to the facts of the killing, but
maybe some regarding motive. That dad was a federal marshall or
something may have had an influence on the case.

<Further, do they have grand juries in juvinile court cases regarding twleve
<year-olds where you live???
<
<The answer is 'No.'

Murder cases aren't tried in juvenile court where I live, at least
not in practice. They are tried in adult court. I'm not sure that
we ever had one involving a twelve year old though. The current one
involves a sixteen year old and maybe his girlfriend.

--
Mike   [e-mail]
"This dream is brought to you by Sharassin of Shan. Dreams and
communication wizardry of all sorts at reasonable rates."  --  Sharassin of Shan