Why should there be?

As shown here, it's not like it 'can't be used against you'.

And as I linked above, law enforcement would love such an exemption, as they have a history of trying to get 3rd parties to do their job, so they're not considered 'state actors' (so don't need petty things like Warrants or probable cause etc.)

Why are you so keen and eager to throw away your 6th amendment right?

You're not getting it.

When you sign a release, that's at the end of a long chain of things.

That's after 3-4 hours of talking.

The prison was REQUIRED to talk to the lawyers about his participation BEFORE anything.

You're again fixated on the idea that 'he chose to sign'. Tell me, Given he had a legally signed document in force that says anyone wanting to talk to him MUST talk to the lawyers first, would you like to explain how they interviewed him and got him to sign the release, or even asked him to sign the release... without first talking to his lawyers?

no, I was talking about the 'everyone knew', that's 'prejudicial', and can cause a mistrial. And no, He could have gotten as little as 20 years if I've read the court documents right. That's why the Prosecution went for this out of context video, to try and show a lack of regret.

The part where even being given the release (which is a TV release, not a release of legal counsel. It permits the likeness to be used on screen commercially.) means they've contacted him without going through his lawyer, which is a BIG constitutional no-no.

I'll make it clear as can possibly be for you.

If you are represented by counsel, ANY contact not related to everyday conduct in a prison MUST be arranged through or with the agreement of Counsel. It's kind of the point of having counsel. If they can just ignore the point of having counsel, and just talk to him, that's a MAJOR 6th amendment violation, because you've taken away the assistance of counsel.

It's not that it was a letter about participating 'in this'.

It was about ANY contact with their client by any outside people. It was a "ANYONE that wants to speak to our MUST Contact us first."

Doesn't matter if it's a cop, the DA, comedy central, some random guy writing a book - ANYONE.

The lawyers were unaware of this 'roast' being filmed until the trial when the prosecution introduced the video.

The lawyers DID provide legal advice that the client was not to be contacted about meeting with anyone, that it had to go through them, which the client signed off on, in the form of the 'no contact notice'.

​

You're too fixated on it just being about the roast, and it's not, it's anyone.

It's a critical part of your rights. If they Mirandize you and you say you want a lawyer, you are from THAT POINT ON considered to be represented by counsel, and cops absolutely can NOT question you until you have your lawyer with you. they can't go 'well, you want to talk anyway, I mean, your lawyer's not here, but that doesn't matter....

Once you are represented by counsel, any contact MUST go through them or with their agreement. That didn't happen here.

no. Because he never got the legal advice. The notice was on the prison, who are in a position to intimidate, lie, etc. In any case, when you're represented by counsel, they MUST contact the counsel, they can't go around it and decide to contact the defendant. It's literally to stop this sort of thing happening.

Correct, they used this tape, shown heavily out of context, to show the jury he had no remorse, lading to the death penalty.

We don't know it was voluntary.

For all we know, the guards might have threatened him. Or lied to him that the footage couldn't be used in court, or something like that. It's exactly WHY there was the 'no contact' order in place.

Tell me, if it was so 'on-the-up', why do you think the prison, and the prosecutors went out of their way to avoid contacting his lawyers?

Prosecutors and cops go out of the way to try and screw people out of their rights, and mislead them to make their job of prosecuting easier.

yes, it's possible to, BUT prosecutors like to get their experts in. And once they've managed to slip it in one court case somewhere, then it becomes easier elsewhere, and once you've got 3-5 cases accepting it (because the judge didn't know its bullshit and the defense didn't know anything about it to counter it) then it becomes VERY hard to challenge the claims in court. It's how expert testimony works, is that when an expert becomes 'accredited' by the court system, you can't challenge his validity of general process any more, as it's become 'accepted'.

Trust me, been there, done that

>If they do that to convict someone "everyone knows" is guilty that's one thing...

yes, the WORST thing.

If 'everyone knows' it, why don't you have lots of properly acquired evidence to prove it.

At the witch trials 'everyone knew' they were a witch.

Remember, what 'everyone knows', is usually '100 bullshit'.

The jail had a 'no contact' order on file with the jail, while on remand (pre-trial detention), saying that under no circumstances was ANYONE to speak to him without his attorney's present.

The jail ignored a lawful notice, and then the prosecution used footage out of context to incriminate him at trial. State argues 'yeah, there was a no contact order in place, but comedy central isn't a state actor, so they don't count'.

It's the same thing that cops used to do, try and persuade 3rd parties to act like cops to get them evidence they couldn't otherwise get, like bribing bestbuy geeksquad people to [illegally] snoop through peoples hard drives and account infor to look for any evidence of potential crimes, which they 'report' having 'just come across it'. The geeks committed multiple crimes, and the evidence is fraudulently obtained, but courts let it in because 'they're not state actors', and mysteriously the prosecutors fail the do anything about the criminal acts.

It's just any attempt to get around legal protections and throw legal rights out the window in the desire to 'get that conviction' (a bit like the story that came out today, of the cop who's spent almost 20 years marketing '911 call analysis', which almost no-one not a cop has heard of, and outside of his own little private study (that no-one has seen the data to) there have been 5 studies done all showing it's crap, but the cops and FBI are still putting it out there as good, and intimidating people with it.

Seriously, you should read the expo on that. It's more 'bite mark' and 'stitch pattern' bullshit.

the uk has a standard replaceable plug though, designed to be replaced (and with all kinds of safety features)

US plus are usually moulded in, and are literal deathtraps in their design, looking like they were designed by a guy who walked by an Edison display in 1880 on their way to the sanitorium.