Comments on: Prosecutorial Skulduggery Uncovered by Grits http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/07/prosecutorial-skulduggery-uncovered-by.html the art and science of criminal defense trial lawyering Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:37:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Mark Bennett http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/07/prosecutorial-skulduggery-uncovered-by.html/comment-page-1#comment-257 Mark Bennett Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:59:00 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/?p=213#comment-257 Lazyguy,<br/><br/>Thanks for the comment. You may be right -- there might be no difference.<br/> <br/>If there is a difference, though, it might be that what the agents did is a violation of the hog rule. They deliberately circumvented law that is already very generous toward law enforcement.<br/><br/>Christopher is right -- the agents are trying to conceal the fact that there was an informant as well as his identity. Even if the court allowed the government to conceal the identify of the informant (which might not happen -- the court could order the government to reveal the informant's identity on pain of dismissal), the fact that there was a police agent involved in the commission of the crime opens new doors of reasonable doubt. Lazyguy,

Thanks for the comment. You may be right — there might be no difference.

If there is a difference, though, it might be that what the agents did is a violation of the hog rule. They deliberately circumvented law that is already very generous toward law enforcement.

Christopher is right — the agents are trying to conceal the fact that there was an informant as well as his identity. Even if the court allowed the government to conceal the identify of the informant (which might not happen — the court could order the government to reveal the informant’s identity on pain of dismissal), the fact that there was a police agent involved in the commission of the crime opens new doors of reasonable doubt.

]]> By: Christopher http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/07/prosecutorial-skulduggery-uncovered-by.html/comment-page-1#comment-256 Christopher Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:46:00 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/?p=213#comment-256 If details of how the PC was orchestrated become known to the accused, I would imagine the CI will be compromised, and less than useful for future operations, regardless of privilege claimed. If details of how the PC was orchestrated become known to the accused, I would imagine the CI will be compromised, and less than useful for future operations, regardless of privilege claimed.

]]> By: Lazyguy http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/07/prosecutorial-skulduggery-uncovered-by.html/comment-page-1#comment-255 Lazyguy Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:45:00 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/?p=213#comment-255 I'm not sure I see the difference in the police removing the license plate of a car that is certainly going to be used for a felony, versus "bait cars" that are left on the street to hopefully be stolen by car thieves that are equipped with video cameras and GPS locators. <br/><br/>If the car is provided by the CI, (who is now an agent of the police), to the suspect, the police should be able to modify the car anyway they see fit to make apprehension of the car as easy and safe as possible.<br/><br/>IF the police tampered with the suspect's car, prior to him receiving the drugs in hopes that they could use that PC to stop his car later, then yeah, you got a good case of manufactured PC there.<br/><br/>What's the difference in this case versus any other police operated sting operation? The AUSA could also claim a privilege in court and still not reveal the CI to the defense. I’m not sure I see the difference in the police removing the license plate of a car that is certainly going to be used for a felony, versus “bait cars” that are left on the street to hopefully be stolen by car thieves that are equipped with video cameras and GPS locators.

If the car is provided by the CI, (who is now an agent of the police), to the suspect, the police should be able to modify the car anyway they see fit to make apprehension of the car as easy and safe as possible.

IF the police tampered with the suspect’s car, prior to him receiving the drugs in hopes that they could use that PC to stop his car later, then yeah, you got a good case of manufactured PC there.

What’s the difference in this case versus any other police operated sting operation? The AUSA could also claim a privilege in court and still not reveal the CI to the defense.

]]> By: Daniel Quackenbush http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/07/prosecutorial-skulduggery-uncovered-by.html/comment-page-1#comment-253 Daniel Quackenbush Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:37:00 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/?p=213#comment-253 I realize that often (mostly in court) "probable cause is what the cops say it is." But wait just a dog-gone minute. If an officer can "manufacture" probable cause, what is the purpose of requiring an arrest based only on probable cause? I realize that often (mostly in court) “probable cause is what the cops say it is.” But wait just a dog-gone minute. If an officer can “manufacture” probable cause, what is the purpose of requiring an arrest based only on probable cause?

]]> By: Gritsforbreakfast http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/07/prosecutorial-skulduggery-uncovered-by.html/comment-page-1#comment-252 Gritsforbreakfast Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:25:00 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/?p=213#comment-252 It was actually a DEA Agent who posed the original question on the message board. Otherwise, thanks for the link and for dropping by at happy hour the other night. It was actually a DEA Agent who posed the original question on the message board. Otherwise, thanks for the link and for dropping by at happy hour the other night.

]]>