From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Aug29111301@world.std.com> <1992Aug30.014718.21863@panix.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:18:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.014718.21863@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

   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.

Right.  He couldn't win his case without the use of illegally obtained
evidence.

   2) You're confused about the nature of inadmissible evidence.  It may
   be perfectly reliable as factual information, but still inadmissible.

No I'm not.  Factual information is only useful in the legal process if
it is legally obtained.  Otherwise it's no better than gossip.

   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.

The use of illegally obtained evidence deceives the jury.

   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).

Well, when you consider that at his trial North was charge with twelve
felonies and the jury acquited him on nine of them it seems that even
when the jury was allowed to decide they still felt he was three fourths
innocent.  Note too that he was only convicted on the "cheap" charges,
destruction of government documents and accepting the gift of a security
fence.  A gift he accepted in desperation because, even though he had
received numerous death threats, the government refused his request for
protections.  This is particularly shocking since he was performing his
activities on behalf of that government.

Also, don't forget the North juror who said she considered him innocent
of all charges but felt she had to convict otherwise she "couldn't face
her friends and neighbors".

   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