Have your lawyer question everything

I agree with Professor Reynolds. Prosecutor conduct like this should carry the death penalty:

the California Court of Appeal reveals that state prosecutors and California Attorney General Kamala Harris continue to be part of the problem. Kern County prosecutor Robert Murray committed “outrageous government misconduct.” Ms. Harris and her staff defended the indefensible—California State prosecutor Murray flat out falsified a transcript of a defendant’s confession.

Kern County prosecutor Robert Murray added two lines of transcript to “evidence” that the defendant confessed to an even more egregious offense than that with which he had been charged—the already hideous offense of molesting a child. With the two sentences that state’s attorney Murray perjuriously added, Murray was able to threaten charges that carried a term of life in prison.

My view on this sort of thing is that if they aren’t going to play by the rules and are not punished by breaking the rules then their opposition is under no obligation to play by the rules either. It’s game on.

We really don’t want to go there but I don’t see an alternative.

13 thoughts on “Have your lawyer question everything

  1. We are long past the point of removing absolute immunity from prosecutors. It is time to give them qualified immunity (like cops) at best.

    • This criminal scumbag needs to be given a triple remedy:

      1. Impeachment
      2. Disbarment
      3. Felony conviction with serious jail time for (a) perjury, (b) forgery, (c) infringement of constitutional rights under color of authority, and probably a couple more charges.

      • One interesting test will be whether a bill of impeachment is even proposed. The other will be, if so, who votes against it.

        If AG Harris supports this person, impeachment and disbarment is also necessary and proper for her.

        • The only appropriate punishment for these prosecutors (Officers of the Court, btw) would be incarceration in the general prison population at Corcoran with properly perjured documentation as a “short eyes”. Anything less is unwarranted mercy granted to the wicked.
          And why is Kamala Harris not yet commiserating with Niphong about truncated legal careers?

      • Any officer of the court that falsifies evidence should also be subject, at minimum, to the same penalties as the ginned up charge.

        • Not just the “same” penalty, but the maximum penalty for the charge. And yes, I include the death penalty in that, for cases where it would apply.

          Plus, if it was a death penalty case, they should also be charged with attempted murder (or murder, if the victim was already executed).

  2. If they keep this up. There’ll be nowhere for them to hide.

    It’s what happens when you destroy the rule of law.

    • Yup.

      This is the sort of thing that ends in death. No appeals, no arguments. Someone just flippin’ KILLS you because you ruined their life, or the life of one of their loved ones.

      And I swear I think they have no idea how bad it could get.

      • They believe the law is for the OTHER guys. They are sure they are on the side of RIGHT. They don’t about the eggs, only the omelet, as it were. But as they stand on the slippery slope, they ask why they should be the chumps, even as they shove everyone around them further and further down towards the teeth of the chipper-shredder they themselves used to operate.

        All empires collapse, all governments end, and it is exceedingly rare that there isn’t a culling of the ranks when the transition isn’t as smooth as the leadership might like. The sad part is, some of them DO survive, leading them ALL to think they are the lily-white chosen ones who will manage to get away with it.

  3. I don’t know what the answer is when such great disregard for organized and legitimate structure is institutionalized. Well, actually, I might; something about the first four sentences of some dead white guys’ scribbling a while back.

    One thing about this is once the tipping point is reached – and there is always a tipping point, the only question is whether it’s reached or not – and the preference cascade kicks in, there are many who do not understand that once started it will not end until it’s completely over, and “completely over” will include a much larger scope, and greater intensity, than either side imagined.

    I’m wondering if it’s time yet to stop buying the various metals and freeze dried food and switch to rope futures.

  4. “My view on this sort of thing is that if they aren’t going to play by the rules and are not punished by breaking the rules then their opposition is under no obligation to play by the rules either. It’s game on.

    “We really don’t want to go there but I don’t see an alternative.”

    The best alternative I see is that anyone who shows a propensity to not play by the rules be disallowed from playing. Disbar them, impeach them, seize back every penny they were ever paid for their roles as “public officials” (they support asset forfeiture, right?). Then, charge them with crimes (18 USC 241 and 242, to start), give them a barely-competent Public Defender (remember, they’re probably bankrupt from the last step, and disbarred from practicing law themselves), try them and sentence them to the maximum, and throw them in General Population. They can see the other side of the “justice” system.

    That’s the best option. I’d spell out the worst one, but the more I think about it from a freedom-loving perspective, the “worst” option is … nothing changes.

  5. Pingback: SayUncle » What he said

Comments are closed.