From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:47:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: panix.1992Aug30.014718.21863
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <ART.92Aug29111301@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com sez:
>In article <1992Aug29.123237.6053@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>   It's true that the D.C. Circuit found that the convictions were
>   tainted by contact with immunized testimony, in violation of the
>   defendants' fifth amendment rights.  But that's not the point.  The
>   original poster's argument was that juries are too clever to be duped
>   by these hopelessly trumped-up charges.  In fact, the North and
>   Poindexter juries convicted on the basis of relevant (and damning)
>   evidence. 
>
>No they didn't.  You yourself say that their constitutional rights
>against self incrimination were violated.  Then you go on to claim that
>there was damning and, by implication, untainted evidence.  If the
>convictions were based on such good evidence why did the Inquisitor
>General choose not to prosecute again?

In reverse order:

1) Walsh chose not to reprosecute because he couldn't get convictions
without the excluded evidence.

2) You're confused about the nature of inadmissible evidence.  It may
be perfectly reliable as factual information, but still inadmissible.
If the cops violate a killer's rights and recover the murder weapon
during an illegal search, the fact that the weapon is inadmissible has
no bearing on the fact that it's extremely powerful and persuasive
evidence.  The search (and consequent exclusion, possibly preventing
trial of the killer) have no relevance to the probative value of the
evidence, to put it differently.

[And before anyone gets any stupid ideas: no, I'm not calling for the
end of the exclusionary rule.  I'm making a distinction that has been
made *countless times* by the Supreme Court in cases such as _Stone v.
Powell_.  If you have a problem with the distinction, talk to the late
Justice Harlan or the live O'Connor, not me.]

3) Now then, to restate: The first poster made a dumb observation that
Walsh couldn't fool the public with his sham prosecutions, as proven
by the "fact" that all the Iran-Contra juries were acquitting.  When I
pointed out the falsehood of this assertion, someone else tried to
claim that North and Poindexter didn't get "fair trials"; this could
only be a rebuttal of my article if he meant that these trials were
unfair in some manner that deceived the jury as to the FACTUAL GUILT
of the defendants.

And now Art is trying to claim that since North and Poindexter were
not LEGALLY GUILTY, it must be that they were also not FACTUALLY
GUILTY.  As noted in the illegal search example above, this is patent
nonsense. 

North and Poindexter were factually guilty, as their trials
established.  They are also legally innocent, since the most probative
evidence can't be used against them at trial (in any practical sense,
anyhow).

Followups to misc.legal.

-- 
		   I am of course experienced in teaching
		  and have read the writings of Dana Plato.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41881 alt.politics.elections:11547 alt.politics.clinton:2971 alt.politics.bush:2861