3 ms·
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 further
by 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 agoPerhaps 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 agoWell, 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 agoRespectfully, I think you missed my point. I don't disagree with anything you've said here.