Colorado woman must turn over computer password

Where is this woman's lawyer? I would think she would be advised appropriately. Right?

 

I'll just chime in here. A long time ago, when I was clerking in federal court, a huge percentage of my judge's time was spent on criminal cases. (That's true of most federal judges: speedy trial requirements and other procedural protections mean that criminal cases go to the front of the line in terms of priorities). In the year I was clerking, I can think of exactly one case in which the defendant testified. There is a reason for that: the govt wants to put you away it should have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, not try to pressure you into confessing. If the govt had that avenue open to it you'd see a lot less real investigation and a lot more manipulation and psychological games.

Even with the fifth amendment in place its' easy for the govt, which has lots of resources and personnel, to pressure the defendant. And the procedural deck is stacked pro-prosecution in many ways. And consider this: there are plenty of cases of false confessions. I don't know why people do that but they do, and it's not uncommon. And that's with the fifth amendment in place. Imagine what would happen if there was no testimonial privilege.

 

So everyone is

I am innocent but should not be truthful or honest with law enforcement because they will find a way to turn the truth against me because they are inherently dishonest and can't be trusted with the truth. That is the nut of your argument, as I read it.

I am not in disagreement with it, though you somehow continue to post as if I am. It's a sad state of affairs. I know it; everyone knows it. Lectures on it are rhetorical.

But it does fly in the face of Truthfulness and Honesty. All of it. On both sides. My very simple point is, the 5th amendment and the Miranda decision only serve to balance the scales at the low end. Rather than insisting law enforcement and the government elevate themselves to fairer, more honest standards and practices of protocol, we (the public) have been forced into devising ways to shield ourselves from them - making the best of a bad situation, but in doing so, the basic problem is never effectively addressed or remedied. The guilty get to stand (hide) behind the same shields as the innocent to ensure the innocent are protected from being railroaded.

In a perfect world, the railroading tactics wouldn't exist, nor would the need for protection from it.

I like truth and honesty and cringe a bit over anything that stifles it, even out of a necessity to do so.

 

It would seem that, for the time being, there is differential application of the law depending on which court district you happen to find yourself in...and given that both of these cases are likely to be appealed it will eventually get picked up by the supreme court who will have to make a decision that applies to everybody. Until the court picks it up though, everyone is somewhat in limbo.

 

forgive my undergrad retardation, but haven't things plateaued? "witch" "commie" "terrorist" it seems like nothing has changed at all and that there is always a good reason to have just as little rights as always. I don't think things have gotten worse at all, but people who remember earlier days and older threats are just more willing to accept that the enemies of their childhood are the "bad guys" and the new scapegoats on the block are victimized when it's actually been going on for.... ever.
--- merged: Mar 11, 2012 at 6:37 PM ---

i'll second this. i recently had to use my 5th rights and my silence was definitely used against me.

 

I think this could have been challenged and won on appeal.

However, the issue was snuffed out by the authorities gaining access through a cutout, which took the constitutional issue off the table.