From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Aug30121858@world.std.com> <1992Aug30.190346.21979@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:28:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.190346.21979@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

   In article <ART.92Aug30121858@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

   >   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.

   So far, Al, you're doing fine.

   >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.

   You are totally wrong here. So-called "illegal" evidence (evidence
   gathered in a way that may have violated a defendant's rights) may be
   *highly reliable*. It is not excluded because it's unreliable--it's
   excluded because (the courts hope) that doing so will force
   the government agents to act within the law in gathering evidence.

But it's still illegal and therefore tainted.

   For discussions of the exclusionary rule--which should make absolutely
   clear that excludable evidence is not by definition unreliable (or "no
   better than gossip"), see McCormick's evidence treatise, or LaFave and
   Israel on criminal procedure.

   >The use of illegally obtained evidence deceives the jury.

   Not necessarily. It is far more likely that the more relevant evidence
   gets before the jury--whether obtained illegally or legally--the more
   likely the jury is to come to an accurate picture of the facts.

But that's the point, the jury is given evidence that is not really
evidence, therefore they are deceived.

   >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.

   Three-fourths innocent? That's like the woman who gets a positive on her
   home-pregnancy test and tells herself "I'm three-fourths not pregnant."

Well, hereabouts you're supposed to be 100% guilty.

   >Note too that he was only convicted on the "cheap" charges,
   >destruction of government documents and accepting the gift of a security
   >fence.

   The "cheap" charges were serious ones. You clearly have not read Toobin's
   book on the prosecution and trial of North.

No, I haven't but so what it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that
the charges on which the jury voted guilty were the least of those
raised.

   Mark Eckenweiler's statement about the significance of excludable or
   illegally obtained evidence is entirely correct. This can be verified by
   anyone who troubles himself to consult sources on evidence law or criminal
   procedure.

I sure don't understand what you mean about significance.  Did North
actually arrange the weapons shipments and use the profits to fund the
Contras?  Of course, he's admitted it.  So what?  If it was a crime why
didn't the Gov't take care to safeguard his rights?

Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.lang.c