4 ms·

Very Mention of Snowden’s Name Makes Prosecutors Tremble

7 points by GeorgeOrr 11y ago

GeorgeOrr 11y ago
The prosecutors also want to prevent the discussion of the existence of the NSA, and a speech by Diane Feinstein. It's best not to confuse juries with anything not favorable to the prosecution.
Terr_ 11y ago
> [T]he defendant should be precluded from arguing or suggesting that the undercover technique the government used in the underlying investigation was improper. Why not just say: "The defendant should be precluded from arguing he is innocent" while you're at it?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The prosecution is trying to limit the arguments the defense can make to those germane to guilt or innocence and the reliability of the particular evidence introduced by the prosecution, using a particularly narrow interpretation of what is germane. (The defense will normally do the same thing in reverse, as well as countering the prosecution motions on these points.) Looking at the particular arguments, and without any more information than is in the article on the case, it does seem that some of the things they seek to exclude would potentially have direct relevance to either guilt/innocence or the reliability of the prosecution evidence (particularly information about the CI, which may serve to contextualize the recorded conversation), but many of the things. The stuff about Snowden and the NSA, well, I'm having trouble seeing the relevance to the questions of fact that appear to be at issue in the case, though if information directly gathered through such surveillance is presented, and a pattern of government dishonesty to courts related to that surveillance can be shown (e.g., the FISC ruling which called the NSA out for repeated misrepresenting the program to the court), it could arguably be relevant evidence to impeaching the program as a source and, therefore, relevant to any of the evidence produced from that source. Like to see the more complete filings from both prosecution and defense on these issues.

7 points by GeorgeOrr 11y ago

The prosecutors also want to prevent the discussion of the existence of the NSA, and a speech by Diane Feinstein. It's best not to confuse juries with anything not favorable to the prosecution.

Terr_ 11y ago

> [T]he defendant should be precluded from arguing or suggesting that the undercover technique the government used in the underlying investigation was improper. Why not just say: "The defendant should be precluded from arguing he is innocent" while you're at it?

dragonwriter 11y ago
The prosecution is trying to limit the arguments the defense can make to those germane to guilt or innocence and the reliability of the particular evidence introduced by the prosecution, using a particularly narrow interpretation of what is germane. (The defense will normally do the same thing in reverse, as well as countering the prosecution motions on these points.) Looking at the particular arguments, and without any more information than is in the article on the case, it does seem that some of the things they seek to exclude would potentially have direct relevance to either guilt/innocence or the reliability of the prosecution evidence (particularly information about the CI, which may serve to contextualize the recorded conversation), but many of the things. The stuff about Snowden and the NSA, well, I'm having trouble seeing the relevance to the questions of fact that appear to be at issue in the case, though if information directly gathered through such surveillance is presented, and a pattern of government dishonesty to courts related to that surveillance can be shown (e.g., the FISC ruling which called the NSA out for repeated misrepresenting the program to the court), it could arguably be relevant evidence to impeaching the program as a source and, therefore, relevant to any of the evidence produced from that source. Like to see the more complete filings from both prosecution and defense on these issues.