Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:1218 misc.legal:23601 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!mahrk From: mahrk@ccicpg.UUCP (MHR {who?}) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: Re: Sophistication of federal investigators Summary: What are you talking about? Message-ID: <12049@ccicpg.UUCP> Date: 17 Jan 91 19:27:03 GMT References: <3277@igloo.scum.com> <1991Jan16.053029.3800@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Jan16.231839.17018@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk Organization: ICL North America Lines: 42 In <1991Jan16.231839.17018@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM writes: > > Then that means that the TV show, LA Law, is misinforming the > public about this. I think that many people watch this show and take > what they say as fact. (As I used to.) > Something must me done. > > Yet, "I know not what to do." > > -- > zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM I know it's sometimes a pain to weed through an inclusion to delete the irrelevant (or un-addressed) parts of another posting in order to post your response. However, in this case I have no idea what you are talking about. I have been following this thread for some time and I don't recall any reference to L.A. Law here. Would you please explain what you mean here? I'm very interested, and quite serious. BTW, L.A. Law is chock full of legal misinformation, so your statement comes as no surprise to me, but I wonder _which_ specific item of misinformation your post attacks. A good example of this was on last week's (January 10) show - the prosecutor in the burglary-murder case made every possible mistake in trying to get the guy (who claimed to have raped the victim who subsequently committed suicide) convicted and sent to the gas chamber. I don't believe for one second that a prosecutor in a first degree murder trial would 1) fail to allege all lesser homicide charges, thereby allowing the jury to convict for a lesser crime rather than simply acquit, 2) drop sure convictions, like the burglary and aggravated assault, when the defendant has just testified under oath that he committed those acts, or 3) present such a lame excuse for trying to get the man executed when the primary objective should have been to get him out of society for as long as possible (IMHO). If they're going to try the man, they usually charge him with everything they have until or unless a plea bargain is offered. Legally speaking, most of the time L.A. Law sucks. -- Mark A. Hull-Richter UUCP: ccicpg!mahrk Clever remark stolen from ICL North America InterNet: [coming soon] another netter: 9801 Muirlands Blvd Go ahead, flame me. I have Irvine, CA 92713 (714)458-7282x4539 a /dev/null on my machine.