4 ms·

You have a link that's not an opinion piece? I've searched for this court case and anytime Kamala Harris is mentioned, the articles are blogs or very suspect re

You have a link that's not an opinion piece? I've searched for this court case and anytime Kamala Harris is mentioned, the articles are blogs or very suspect reporting websites. Also they all have identical content, looking as if each website copy and pasted the content between themselves.

merpnderp 8y ago
I googled the judge's name plus the name of the case and the first result was the hearing transcript. If you're a Kamala Harris fan, prepare to be traumatized. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781830/people-v-velasco-palacios-ca5/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781830/people-v-velas...
- HoppedUpMenace 8y ago
  I'm indifferent to her in any regard but it would be interesting to see if this gets more attention as we get closer to 2020. Seems fairly straight-forward that she was defending the right of a prosecutor to get away with fabricating evidence.
  - mrunkel 8y ago
    Actually no, that's not what was being argued. They state was arguing that the defendant should still be tried on the remaining evidence because they weren't fooled by the prosecutorial misconduct. In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial misconduct. While the behavior of the prosecutor was clearly abhorrent, it is reasonable for the state to take this position.
    - trhway 8y ago
      >In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial misconduct. no, that's not what was being argued. The decision uses the established precedent that defendant is to be "rewarded" in case of "outrageous or conscience shocking" prosecutorial misconduct. Kamala didn't argue against that. What, in the words of the judges listening to her, she argued is: " On appeal, however, the People dispute that Murray’s misconduct was outrageous or conscience shocking in a constitutional sense, as it was not physically brutal. ... According to the People, this language stands for the proposition that misconduct must be “brutal” in order to shock the conscience and support a sanction of dismissal. " May be you think that the judges misunderstood the arguments presented by the "People" ? :)
      - cannonedhamster 8y ago
        I agree with your position after reading the findings. Basically Kamala Harris was, acting on behalf of the state, attempting to set a precedent for physical violence being present before a client's case could be dismissed regardless of other prosecutorial misconduct.

merpnderp 8y ago

I googled the judge's name plus the name of the case and the first result was the hearing transcript. If you're a Kamala Harris fan, prepare to be traumatized. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781830/people-v-velasco-palacios-ca5/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781830/people-v-velas...

HoppedUpMenace 8y ago
I'm indifferent to her in any regard but it would be interesting to see if this gets more attention as we get closer to 2020. Seems fairly straight-forward that she was defending the right of a prosecutor to get away with fabricating evidence.
- mrunkel 8y ago
  Actually no, that's not what was being argued. They state was arguing that the defendant should still be tried on the remaining evidence because they weren't fooled by the prosecutorial misconduct. In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial misconduct. While the behavior of the prosecutor was clearly abhorrent, it is reasonable for the state to take this position.
  - trhway 8y ago
    >In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial misconduct. no, that's not what was being argued. The decision uses the established precedent that defendant is to be "rewarded" in case of "outrageous or conscience shocking" prosecutorial misconduct. Kamala didn't argue against that. What, in the words of the judges listening to her, she argued is: " On appeal, however, the People dispute that Murray’s misconduct was outrageous or conscience shocking in a constitutional sense, as it was not physically brutal. ... According to the People, this language stands for the proposition that misconduct must be “brutal” in order to shock the conscience and support a sanction of dismissal. " May be you think that the judges misunderstood the arguments presented by the "People" ? :)
    - cannonedhamster 8y ago
      I agree with your position after reading the findings. Basically Kamala Harris was, acting on behalf of the state, attempting to set a precedent for physical violence being present before a client's case could be dismissed regardless of other prosecutorial misconduct.