It seems as though corrupt Medina County prosecutor DINO HOLMAN was inspired by the TV series and decided to begin his own local program of undercover "investigation," MEDINA VICE.
Always mindful of the need to preserve his tarnished 98% rate of conviction, and in utter contempt for the United States Constitution, HOLMAN conceived of a new and resourceful strategy, although HIGHLY ILLEGAL.
HOLMAN concluded that it made plenty of sense to him that, if the Medina County sheriff's deputies did a lousy, ineffective, and incompetent job of developing the minimal facts necessary to indict and punish innocent citizens, WHY NOT PUT UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATORS INTO THE JAIL BESIDE ALL OF THOSE HARDENED SOON-TO-BE FELONS AND GET THE INFORMATION THAT WAY!
I'm sure that HOLMAN figured he had a sure-fire winner with that idea and so he forged ahead straightaway.
The only minor problem with little scheme is that IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF THE SOON-TO-BE HARDENED CRIMINALS, UPON WHOM HOLMAN HAS SET HIS UNLAWFUL SIGHTS.
The FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, BUTTRESSED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN THE 1966 LANDMARK CASE MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, PROVIDES THAT A CITIZEN TRULY HAS THE RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM MAKING INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS IN A CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT.
I am reasonably confident that most would agree that the Medina County Jail is a custodial environment.
The SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL.
The FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IMPOSES AND CONFERS THE SIXTH AMENDMENT UPON THE STATES.
Lo and behold, HOLMAN and his criminal assistants (an apt characterization) have come upon this ingenious tactic to assault and defeat the protections guaranteed to innocent citizens conferred by NO FEWER THAN THREE AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
I'm fairly confident that HOLMAN believed that he hit the JACKPOT with this scheme.
However, the United States Supreme Court has stepped in long ago and ruled that HOLMAN's scheme is HIGHLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Should you decide to confirm this for yourselves, you may go to http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=385&invol=293 in a matter decided by the United States Supreme Court, in HOFFA v. UNITED STATES (1966).
Once again, and as usual, the United States Supreme Court decided more than 40 years ago that HOLMAN's tactic of invading the defense camp is unconstitutional and compels setting aside any conviction arising from such a practice, which is nothing more than business as usual in the Medina County courts.
Following is an excerpt taken directly from Hoffa v. United States, referenced above:
The proposition that a surreptitious invasion by a government agent into the legal camp of the defense may violate the protection of the Sixth Amendment has found expression in two cases decided by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Caldwell v. United States, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 355, 205 F.2d 879, and Coplon v. United States, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 103, 191 F.2d 749. Both of those cases dealt with government intrusion of the grossest kind upon the confidential relationship between the defendant and his counsel. In Coplon, the [385 U.S. 293, 307] defendant alleged that government agents deliberately intercepted telephone consultations between the defendant and her lawyer before and during trial. In Caldwell, the agent, "[i]n his dual capacity as defense assistant and Government agent . . . gained free access to the planning of the defense. . . . Neither his dealings with the defense nor his reports to the prosecution were limited to the proposed unlawful acts of the defense: they covered many matters connected with the impending trial." 92 U.S. App. D.C., at 356, 205 F.2d, at 880.
We may assume that the Coplon and Caldwell cases were rightly decided, and further assume, without deciding, that the Government's activities during the Test Fleet trial were sufficiently similar to what went on in Coplon and Caldwell to invoke the rule of those decisions. Consequently, if the Test Fleet trial had resulted in a conviction instead of a hung jury, the conviction would presumptively have been set aside as constitutionally defective. Cf. Black v. United States, ante, p. 26.
THERE IT IS ONCE AGAIN, IN BLACK & WHITE! THE LANGUAGE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO BE TERRIBLY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND!
PERHAPS HOLMAN THINKS THAT THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT WERE JUST KIDDING!
MUCH MOR TO COME ....
No comments:
Post a Comment