4 ms·
Fair point. It has held up in a single state court of appeals, so I was definitely wrong about this being without substance on appeal, but the jurisdiction of t
by evgen 5y ago
Fair point. It has held up in a single state court of appeals, so I was definitely wrong about this being without substance on appeal, but the jurisdiction of the ruling is quite small and I am unaware of anything federal backing the claims being made.
- eynsham 5y agoSee e.g. p. 10ff. of the amicus brief where quite a lot of federal precedent is cited.
- joshjdr 5y agoI’m not sure this is correct. A state court of appeals made this ruling, but it wasn’t a matter of state law (the “law” is the US constitution and the precedent was a US Supreme Court case); I believe the “jurisdiction” (e.g. where this ruling establishes precedent as far as how the 5th amendment applies in this situation) is the entire US (unless a higher court rules otherwise). Not a lawyer but I think a future defense attorney with a client in a similar situation in a another state would reference this ruling and try to convince a judge that their client’s situation was similar enough to invoke that ruling, whereas a prosecutor would be making the case that it was different enough that it did not apply (vs saying that it was a different jurisdiction and did not apply).