Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!solo!vaxb.acs.unt.edu!cirby
From: cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby))
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: CNN
Message-ID: <1990Nov20.075707.41354@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 90 07:51:07 GMT
References: <1990Nov16.235831.25433@agate.berkeley.edu> <4948@rsiatl.UUCP> <5378@prussian9.UUCP> <1990Nov20.035510.23148@hoss.unl.edu>
Lines: 75

In article <1990Nov20.035510.23148@hoss.unl.edu>, riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes:
> In <5378@prussian9.UUCP> dogar@motcid.UUCP (Haroon H. Dogar) writes:
> 
>>jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
> 
>>>Defend themselves?  Considering that according to the papers, CNN 
>>>originally stole these tapes from the government, 
> 
>>Uh... I'm no legal eagle, but it seems to me that for "the government"
>>to have tapes of conversations between a defendant and his/her lawyer
>>has got to be against some law.
> 
> Not when the tapes were made in the prison, and Noriega had signed a
> waiver of recording in order to use the phone.  It's still unanswered how
> the government tapes got into the hands of the CNN.

..but the government is *not* supposed to record conversations between
a defendant and their lawyer.  Signing a waiver- under minor duress ("You
have to sign this sheet of paper, or we don't let you make phone calls")-
is not sufficient to allow the government to violate lawyer-client privacy.
The fun part is: have the Federal prosecutors got a copy of the tapes?

 
>>>Maybe since the tapes are back
>>>under control of the court, Noriega can stand trial and have some chance
>>>of it being fair.
> 
>>Not if the other side knows what he and his lawyer have been talking about.
>>(I think its equally wrong for CNN to have or broadcast these conversations.)
> 
> At this moment, CNN still has the tapes, they just have a court order, in
> essence validated by the Supreme Court, not to broadcast them.  Tonight's
> paper said that CNN would provide a copy of the tapes to the district
> court so the judge will now be able to decide if Noriega's constitutional
> rights to an impartial jury and a fair trial will be violated by the
> entire world hearing conversations with his lawyer.  I expect CNN will
> keep copies of the tapes.

Fun thought- could the government force CNN to turn over "archival backups"
of these tapes?  Or does that just hold for computer information?

Major parallels to Sun Devil here.
 
> Remember also that the government is big.  Just because the prison has the
> tapes doesn't mean that the U.S. attorney has them.  (Although if I were
> on the bench I'd put the burden of proof on the government, with the best
> access to the evidence on the point, to prove the U.S. attorney had NOT
> heard them.)

..would you like to bet (for you conspiracy buffs) that someone way up
in the government came up with this?  You know... "Noriega is gonna spill
too much when he hits the stand... we have to get him loose.  Someone
come up with a way of getting him off.  Leak some information- get him
off on some technicality..."

(followups to alt.conspiracy?)  ;-)
 
> Even in the Pentagon Papers case, the publishing of the papers was
> restrained for about a week until the Supreme Court considered the matter.
> I don't think it's too much to ask CNN to wait until the Court can review
> the tapes in this case.  While the Free Press is a fundamental right, so
> is a Fair Trial.

Noriega?  Get a fair trial?  Suuuuure....

I think we ought to just give up on this one.  Let's just put him on a 
plane back to Panama.  I'm sure the Panamanians would be happy to see him
again.


-- 
C Irby                             || "Go that way... *really* fast.
Internet:   cirby@vaxa.acs.unt.edu ||  If something gets in your way,
Bitnet:     cirby@untvax           ||  turn!"
Compuserve: 71541,770              ||       ---_Better Off Dead_---