Last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court reinstated thousands of DUI convictions after two independent testing labs examined the software.

This is a case about the Exclusionary Rule.  Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts argues that the mistakes of law enforcement are not serious enough in the case to justify excluding the evidence. This is not an outrageous argument, and it is not wildly out of line with the relevant cases.

I don’t think this is a wise decision. Why should law enforcement be rewarded for being careless?

Don’t take my word for it.  Read the decision and the dissents for yourself and think about the issues presented.

This important story has been discussed widely. Read some of the coverage for yourself at The Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Washington Post, the Independent, Expatica, and Nasdaq.

This case should not be in the civilian courts. Although I have publically opposed the Iraq war from the start, I would not want to handle this case. How is it that the government has chosen to prosecute this one front-line soldier for deaths that occurred during one of the most violent battles of this dreadful war? What are they going to do, get Iraqi insurgents to testify in court in front of an American jury?

Wouldn’t it be better to prosecute Bush and Blair and Cheney and the others? They have squandered and stolen trillions of dollars and murdered millions of innocents around the world.  One of the many tragedies of this criminal war is the extent to which we’re squandering the lives of some of the best and brightest of the social classes who serve in the US Armed forces.

Follow this story here here here and here.

Even if this defendant had been acquitted of all the charges, he still wouldn’t have been released. Why bother with a trial if the suspect is going to remain behind bars no matter what? Read more about it here and here.

Barney Frank and Ron Paul are working together to bring a little sanity into federal drug policy. Here is a summary of HR 5843 from Barney Frank’s office.

]]> http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/08/05/hr-5843-federal-marijuana-reform/feed/ 1 00:01:01 House Resolution 5843 would end the federal prohibition of possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana. and for the non-profit sale of up to ... House Resolution 5843 would end the federal prohibition of possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana. and for the non-profit sale of up to an ounce. HR 5843 would provide a $100 fine for public use of marijuana. Sadly, HR 5843 would not take marijuana off of Schedule One List of drugs under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Barney Frank and Ron Paul are working together to bring a little sanity into federal drug policy. Here is a summary of HR 5843 from Barney Frank's office. Civil,Liberties,,Criminal,Law,amp;,Procedure scott_pearce@passthebar.com no No http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/06/03/money-laundering-cases/ http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/06/03/money-laundering-cases/#comments Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:48:07 +0000 Scott F. Pearce, Esq. http://jurisvodcast.com/?p=32 The US Supreme Court gave the criminal defense bar a couple of significant victories this week. Not only will it be more difficult for prosecutors to win money laundering convictions, but prosecutors will have weaker bargaining power in plea negotiations.

Read the US Supreme Court decisions for Cuellar v. US and US v. Santos. For mainstream media coverage, check out this, this, and this.

If you’re interested in more information, check out this state court appellate brief for Melendez-Diaz. For some mainstream media coverage, you can look here and here.

For further study, have a look at the Arizona Supreme Court Decision in this case. Read the decision in Thornton v. US, which is the most recent (2004) Supreme Court decision on the auto search incident to a lawful arrest issue. Other interesting articles on the case can be found here, here and here.

The defendant is a Canadian with US Residency. Border agents examined his laptop and discovered it contained child pornography. When the cops tried to inspect the laptop, they couldn’t get to an encrypted part of the hard drive. A grand jury issued a subpoena for the password, but the defendant filed a motion to quash, based on the Fifth Amendment.

A United States Magistrate Judge granted the motion to quash. He ruled that the Fifth Amendment forbids the government from making the defendant testify against himself by disclosing the password. The government is free to try to crack the password code, but they concede this may be impossible.