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
- Update: Dr. Mario Saad Asks Court To Reconsider Prior Restraint On Epically Ridiculous Grounds - March 4th, 2015
- Darren Wilson and the Benefit of Doubt - March 4th, 2015
- A Few Comments on the David Petraeus Plea Deal: What Money And Connections Buy You - March 3rd, 2015
- Weekend Censorious Dipshittery Roundup - March 2nd, 2015
- Judge Tim Grendell Was For The First Amendment Before He Was Against It - March 2nd, 2015