Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (11468)	8/7/2003 3:27:26 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Some make sense, such as excluding the fruits of illegal searches. Even here, other methods, such as busting and prosecuting the cops who authorized and/or did it, would seem more effective. But others seem designed to lead the jury to an incorrect conclusion. For example, there is the recent well known case in CA involving medicinal marijuana. This was presented to the jury as though the defendant was a big time drug dealer. They convicted, not knowing that he was working under a local medicinal marijuana program. All the jurors said later that they would not have convicted had they known the full story and that they felt the gov't had intentionally lied to them by omitting crucial facts. Well, except for the ones that keep out the evidence I want to offer.<g> Which crook are you trying to keep out of the slammer? :-)