3 ms·

Seems to me like there are two angles to it: - Yes, the law should apply equally to the guilty and innocent: the KKK has the right to free speech, and this ass

Seems to me like there are two angles to it: - Yes, the law should apply equally to the guilty and innocent: the KKK has the right to free speech, and this asshole has 4th amendment rights requiring a warrant before his effects can be searched. According to the article, there was one. - If you want to make an argument about nuance, do it in a venue where nuance is appropriate. This guy got caught murdering his wife, using evidence obtained from a warrant. The EFF is arguing that the warrant should have been more specific. Perhaps, but this is the wrong case to try to establish that precedence on. It's human nature to want justice, and letting someone off on a technicality is an affront to justice. If everyone knew that this technicality existed, it's a reasonable defense to use. However, to argue for the existence of a technicality where one doesn't already exist flies in the face of our fundamental desire for the world to be a fair place. I suspect that makes it a much harder case to win, because at the end of the day, someone's going to be thinking "but it let THIS ASSHOLE off? No, that's not OK."

burkaman 10y ago
I understand that position, but I think the practicality argument is important here. These kinds of cases don't appear in Supreme Courts very often, and furthermore if EFF doesn't intervene and the conviction is upheld, that sets a precedent going the other way. Every chance they ignore makes their future chances much more difficult. Also, I don't think he'll be "let off" regardless of what happens. He's been in jail for 12 years, and if successful here he'll get a new trial, not be immediately released. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the case against him is still fairly strong without the laptop evidence, which was circumstantial like everything else.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Perhaps there is a better case for this precedent to be made -- I don't know -- but if not, in addition to the points you made, I wonder would one similarly not argue for other due process rights in cases where the defendant was clearly guilty? To me, questioning the EFF's decision here should be done in the context of the historical precedent of the past court cases where due process rights have been fought for.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Well, there is some wiggle room here because the EFF is a private organization with no duty to defend anyone, and the defendant already has adequate representation. Everybody has the right to a defense lawyer, but nobody has the right to a nonprofit helping out, that's a privilege. To put it another way, I support the ACLU defending the KKK, but I probably wouldn't support an organization dedicated solely to defending KKK members, even if they always operated within the law. That said, I still agree with EFF's decision, but I can see both sides.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      Respectfully, I think you missed my point. I don't disagree with anything you've said here.
dmitrygr 10y ago
In order to get this to happen, you MUST take it to court, and to do that you need to find someone to whom this technicality applies. Thus if it was not this (alleged) murderer, it would have been an alleged thief or an alleged drug dealer. These sorts of things rarely have a warm and fuzzy person in the spot light, because those rarely need such protection.

burkaman 10y ago

I understand that position, but I think the practicality argument is important here. These kinds of cases don't appear in Supreme Courts very often, and furthermore if EFF doesn't intervene and the conviction is upheld, that sets a precedent going the other way. Every chance they ignore makes their future chances much more difficult. Also, I don't think he'll be "let off" regardless of what happens. He's been in jail for 12 years, and if successful here he'll get a new trial, not be immediately released. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the case against him is still fairly strong without the laptop evidence, which was circumstantial like everything else.

wallace_f 10y ago
Perhaps there is a better case for this precedent to be made -- I don't know -- but if not, in addition to the points you made, I wonder would one similarly not argue for other due process rights in cases where the defendant was clearly guilty? To me, questioning the EFF's decision here should be done in the context of the historical precedent of the past court cases where due process rights have been fought for.
- burkaman 10y ago
  Well, there is some wiggle room here because the EFF is a private organization with no duty to defend anyone, and the defendant already has adequate representation. Everybody has the right to a defense lawyer, but nobody has the right to a nonprofit helping out, that's a privilege. To put it another way, I support the ACLU defending the KKK, but I probably wouldn't support an organization dedicated solely to defending KKK members, even if they always operated within the law. That said, I still agree with EFF's decision, but I can see both sides.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    Respectfully, I think you missed my point. I don't disagree with anything you've said here.

dmitrygr 10y ago

In order to get this to happen, you MUST take it to court, and to do that you need to find someone to whom this technicality applies. Thus if it was not this (alleged) murderer, it would have been an alleged thief or an alleged drug dealer. These sorts of things rarely have a warm and fuzzy person in the spot light, because those rarely need such protection.