Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
From: royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Keenan Royle)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Our unfair legal system.
Summary: He who has the biggest lawer wins.
Keywords: Screwy legal system.
Message-ID: <1991Jun18.184312.22347@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 18 Jun 91 23:42:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Indiana University
Lines: 19


Of the 5 cases that came out operation sundevil (that I know of) 1 was dropped
when it went to trial (costing $100K).  The other 4 (Rose and Riggs and company)
ended in a guilty plea.

From what I understand of the Rose case and the Bellsouth 911 case the
evidence (and how it was aquired) was pretty shakey.  They all may have
had a good chance at being found not guilty (or having the cases droppped)
if they had had the money (and the will) to fight a protracted battle.

My point is that it costs a lot of money to be found innocent and 
free legal defence is often sub-standard.  Does this seem fair?
Isn't this simular to the legal cases surrounding patents?
It seems that if you have the most money you win.  And against
individual defendants in a criminal case the government always
has more money.


Just a thought.