Police and prosecution roundup

  • Body cameras protect both police and the citizenry [Steve Chapman]
  • “Federal Prosecutor Disciplined for Making False Statements” [John Steele, Legal Ethics Forum]
  • “The more popular view is that the role of a jury is to deliver a guilty verdict when the government accuses someone of a crime” [Ken at Popehat]
  • More on forfeiture following New Yorker piece [Steve Greenhut, ABA Journal, earlier]
  • How feds went after maker of secret automotive compartments [Brendan Koerner, Wired, April; Amy Alkon] Held at gunpoint for half hour+: massive Texas SWAT raid on organic farm yields okra, no pot [Radley Balko] Mother Jones magazine is perfectly happy to cheer on Drug War lunacy when that affords a chance to bash big pharma [Cathy Reisenwitz, Thoughts on Liberty]
  • “Law Enforcement Wants To Weaken Section 230: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?” [websites’ immunity for content left by visitors; Popehat]
  • Eliot Spitzer’s prosecutorial sins catalogued [Lawrence Cunningham]


  • On “Jury Expected To Render Guilty Verdict:” How much longer before it will become “Sentence First, Verdict Later”?

    (With kudos to Lewis Carroll.)

  • […] Scheme backed by many state AGs to roll back websites’ immunity for content posted by visitors “could singlehandedly cripple free speech online” [ACLU, earlier] […]

  • ‘ How much longer before it will become “Sentence First, Verdict Later”?’

    “you have to vote for the law before you know what’s in it” comes to mind…
    Or the age old “he would not have been arrested if he’d not done something wrong”, making every arrested person automatically guilty.
    This is already the case with traffic tickets, where appeal is only possible after paying the fine, an act that is an implicit admission of guilt, thereby making the appeal pointless.