From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rage (story)
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:58:37 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <19271@plains.NoDak.edu>, hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu (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?

> 
> <...                                           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...
 

> 
> <...                                 Trial by jury--compromised???
> <Where are you getting these notions???
> 
> 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
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
process. (See Chapman v California 683 U.S. 18 for more details.) In short, the
Supreme Court determined that if there was a reasonable doubt that the 
material entered into evidence "might have contributed to the conviction",
automatic re-trial.
 

> 
> <Only after she is found guilty. She mst be on trial for that to happen. If she
> <is on trial, THEN her fifth amendment protection kicks in, and the state can
> <not force her to testify. You will not find an exception to that.
> <
> <And, if her counsel asked for immunity, her prior testimony on the subject can
> <not be used.
> 
> 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.
> Her testimony gets used against her. She spends ten years in the electric
> chair. This might be mistaken for an honest mistake, so there is some
> chance that her conviction will be reversed. If the appeals court
> recognises lawlessness when it sees it, it is likely to just make
> some comment on the egregiousness of the crime or the zealousness with
> which her rights were enforced and uphold the conviction.

Jesus Bucko, are you reading your criminal procudre from a Lucky Charms box???
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!!!
 
Further, do they have grand juries in juvinile court cases regarding twleve
year-olds where you live???

The answer is 'No.' 


DC