|
mnottertail -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/12/2010 3:07:16 PM)
|
again deceptive and weaseling out of the fucking mess youve put yourself into.
The entire judgement for the general caselaw is wholly different than that held in this case.
The entire judgement is and I quote:
Held: In the circumstances of this case, failure of the court to require disclosure of the identity of the informer was reversible error. Pp. 353 U. S. 54-66.
(a) Where disclosure of an informer's identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair trial, the Government's privilege to withhold disclosure of the informer's identity must give way. Pp. 353 U. S. 60-62.
(b) However, no fixed rule is justifiable. The public interest in protecting the flow of information to the Government must be balanced against the individual's right to prepare his defense. Whether nondisclosure is erroneous depends on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors. P. 353 U. S. 62.
(c) In this case, the informer was not expressly mentioned in the relevant charge of the indictment; but the charge, viewed in connection with the evidence introduced at his trial, is so closely related to the informer as to make his identity and testimony highly material. Pp. 353 U. S. 62-63.
(d) The provision of the statute authorizing a conviction when the Government has proved that the accused possessed narcotics -- unless he explains or justifies such possession -- emphasizes petitioner's vital need for access to any material witness. P. 353 U. S. 63.
Page 353 U. S. 54
(e) The circumstances of this case demonstrate that the informer's possible testimony was highly relevant, and might have been helpful to the defense. Pp. 353 U. S. 63-65.
(f) On the record in this case, it cannot be assumed that the informer was known to petitioner and available to him as a witness, nor that the informer had died before the trial. P. 353 U. S. 60, n 8.
(g) The trial court erred also in denying, prior to the trial, petitioner's motion for a bill of particulars, insofar as it requested the informer's identity and address, particularly because Count 1 of the indictment charged an unlawful sale of heroin to the informer. P. 353 U. S. 65, n. 15
Please take a moment to acqauant yourself with the particulars. you will see that the error eminated from the fact that the accuser (the undercover buyer) and only the accusor was the case, and knowing the accuser was considered helpful to the case. *NB: unless he explains or justifies such possession (which may have occurred with knowledge and investigation of the accuser). 2000-3000 people killed.......justify this by condeming the accusers------hmmmmmmmm, lets give that a quick think.
For the rest of it, please read (b) and (c), give that a quick think.
|
|
|
|
