What Defense Lawyers Are Up Against
Witness tells Cop that she saw a photo of guns in Defendant's house a year ago, and thinks she saw guns there at one point more than a year ago.
Cop tells judge, in warrant application, that Witness says that Defendant is currently an arms trafficker. It is undisputed that Witness did not say that — that Witness did not say a blessed thing about Defendant selling or transferring guns.
Judge issues warrant.
We challenge warrant.
Reviewing judge says that Cop's statement — that Witness said Defendant was engaged in arms trafficking — is just an "exaggeration," not a false statement vitiating the warrant.
That. That right there. That's what it is like.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Ares Rights, Bless Its Heart, Continues Bumbling Attempts At Censorship - September 2nd, 2014
- Patrick McLaw, Skepticism, And Law Enfocement's Obliging Stenographers - September 2nd, 2014
- Attorney Mike Meier Meets The Streisand Effect, Does Not Enjoy Experience - August 27th, 2014
- Adventures in Sleazy Marketing: Purzue Just Wants A Conversation - August 27th, 2014
- Government Priorities: Compare And Contrast - August 25th, 2014