4 ms·
The difference is that the tortured guy was suing the government, while this bank robber is being sued by the government. As it's a criminal case, the standard
by Tuna-Fish 13y ago
The difference is that the tortured guy was suing the government, while this bank robber is being sued by the government. As it's a criminal case, the standard of proof is on his side. So, it's not necessary for there to be proof that he's innocent, all he needs to do is to create a little bit of doubt.
He's probably hoping that the government doesn't release records, as this could possibly be enough to free him.
- TomAnthony 13y agoIndeed, in the United States vs Reynolds Supreme Court case that seems to be considered the seminal [1] to establish the State's Secret Privilege: The district court rejected the formal claim and ordered the documents be produced; but, the government refused and the court entered final judgment for plaintiffs on the grounds that the refusal to produce the documents established the Air Force’s negligence. It seems the same logic could potentially apply here? [1] http://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9577-lcb111lyonspdf http://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9577-lcb111lyonspdf
- ignostic 13y agoSadly I don't think so. I believe in that case it was certain that documents did exist and one party was just refusing to produce them. In this case, the NSA is neither prosecution nor defense, and therefore doesn't have the same disclosure requirements. Further, there's no proof the NSA has such records. But, like most people in this thread, I am not a lawyer.