Thursday’s Quick Clicks…

4 responses to “Thursday’s Quick Clicks…

  1. Just to emphasize. The West Virginia case is a MAJOR BIG DEAL.
    It could set precedent that prosecutors cannot withhold exculpatory evidence during a plea bargaining process.
    How can you “bargain” honestly and in good faith if the other guy has secret information????

  2. It’s terrible that a defendant would plead guilty when there is hard evidence he doesn’t know about that proves his innocence.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/west-virginia-ruling-could-clarify-the-rights-of-criminal-defendants.html

  3. Docile Jim Brady – Bend OR 97702

    🙂 Re « How can you “bargain” honestly and in good faith if the other guy has secret information ???? »
    Thanks for the info , Mark „ and the comment , Phil •

    Decades ago a graduate of the University of Cincinnati Law School attorney informed me that the reason folks misbehave is that the RISK:REWARD ratio is too low or does not exist , to DISCOURAGE misbehavior ‼

    ▼ A Modest Proposal for a fix ▼
    Enhance the RISK:REWARD ratio to such a level that not only will the prosecutors refrain from THINKING of withholding exculpatory evidence ;;; their descendants for three degrees by consanguinity AND affinity „ will argue against withholding such evidence „ whether an attorney ‼

    ▼ E.G. ▼
    1. The Tinville solution*1
    2. The Stuart’s solution to the participants in the Charles I trial *2
    3. ▬►IF◄▬ a victim , relative or good friend unlawfully*3 “eliminates” a rogue prosecutor from the criminal adjudication*4 protocol „ ▬►THEN◄▬ the maximum level of crime is capped at voluntary manslaughter ‼

    *1 Prosecutor Antoine Quentin Fouquier de Tinville Esq. and several subordinates were severely sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct on 07 May 1795 •

    *2 The living (and a few of the dead ‼) participants at the trial , sentence , and execution of sentence were severely sanctioned in October 1660 — An Act of Free and Generall Pardon Indempnity and Oblivion, § XXXIV. Persons excepted by Name who were concerned in the Murder of King Charles I. ¶ and of the two Persons who appeared disguised upon the Scaffold.

    *3 Reserve high level crime sanctions by victims to low level rogues •

    *4 The term “criminal justice” was intentionally avoided •

    Kindly submitted — Nemo Me Impune Lacessit — DJB
    Thursday 12 Novenber 2015 @15:43 -0500 (EST)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s