ACLU booted from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hearing

23 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
ACLU booted from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hearing | Boston Herald

The former UMass Dartmouth student’s taxpayer-funded counsel will go before O’Toole tomorrow to argue for vacating what they deem “extraordinary and severe” restrictions they liken to “torture,” including that Tsarnaev is denied TV and radio, family photos, prayer with other inmates and visitation from anyone other than his lawyers and immediate family,
(LMFAO)


-Chris
  • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
    Classic Chris.

    I always liken not being able to watch TV as extraordinary and extreme torture.

    Bless the poor man and to think that's happening to him when all he did was mass kill as many people as possible.

    And imagine having done that, only having visits from lawyers and immediate family. What I'd give for a visit from Coco the clown at the point, is beyond my vocabulary.
    Signature

    Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8693533].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
      Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

      Classic Chris.

      I always liken not being able to watch TV as extraordinary and extreme torture.
      Id subject him to endless re-runs of the same episode of The View and Justin Bieber 'music' videos.


      -Chris
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8695497].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        The defense attorneys are basically asking for all witness statements the prosecution has - including from Tsarnaev's family members - and for documents presented to the Grand Jury.

        IANAL but I'm not sure they are entitled to everything they are asking for. May fall under "ask for everything and see what you can get".

        Tsarnaev is kept tightly controlled because (it has been written) in interviews he said he hoped "others" would follow his lead. They are giving him no chance to pass messages or make contact.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world -
        but the world will be forever changed for that one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8695572].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          The defense attorneys are basically asking for all witness statements the prosecution has - including from Tsarnaev's family members - and for documents presented to the Grand Jury.

          IANAL but I'm not sure they are entitled to everything they are asking for. May fall under "ask for everything and see what you can get".

          Tsarnaev is kept tightly controlled because (it has been written) in interviews he said he hoped "others" would follow his lead. They are giving him no chance to pass messages or make contact.
          I believe that falls under the compulsory process and confrontation clauses of the 6th amendment. It prevents one side from having a "tactical" advantage in the trial.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8695634].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            I don't know what the law is on it - but the biggest complaint they have is not having access to the full statements given by his family members....why can't they ask the family members what they said?

            I know states have different laws about release of grand jury information - don't know fed rule.

            With this high profile case, I can't believe prosecutors would go off the reservation (though dragging their feet is an acceptable practice) and violate laws that could damage their case.

            I think defense has a hard road on this case and will toss out as many objections/complaints as they can - but that's the job of defense lawyers.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world -
            but the world will be forever changed for that one dog.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8695672].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              I don't know what the law is on it - but the biggest complaint they have is not having access to the full statements given by his family members....why can't they ask the family members what they said?

              I know states have different laws about release of grand jury information - don't know fed rule.

              With this high profile case, I can't believe prosecutors would go off the reservation (though dragging their feet is an acceptable practice) and violate laws that could damage their case.

              I think defense has a hard road on this case and will toss out as many objections/complaints as they can - but that's the job of defense lawyers.
              They likely left a trail to and from the guy they confessed to. Their history, and behavior since, SCREAMS that they are angry terrorists. They were in the area, ordered items, etc.... He was found hiding in a boat bleeding with a fired gun, etc... If all that matches up with the appropriate facts, he would be considered guilty in a way that is more proper than MANY.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8695740].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              I don't know what the law is on it - but the biggest complaint they have is not having access to the full statements given by his family members....why can't they ask the family members what they said?

              I know states have different laws about release of grand jury information - don't know fed rule.

              With this high profile case, I can't believe prosecutors would go off the reservation (though dragging their feet is an acceptable practice) and violate laws that could damage their case.

              I think defense has a hard road on this case and will toss out as many objections/complaints as they can - but that's the job of defense lawyers.
              It is tricky from what I understand about it.
              Again from what I've heard nothing is getting done that will give him an out on this.
              It's more a matter of doing things that would allow the defense to appeal the verdict possibly causing a retrial, primarily based on a procedural mis-step.
              There's nothing that I can see that will get him off with a not guilty verdict by the jurors, but a retrial will naturally end up costing the citizens of Mass. more.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8695775].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                I was shocked (shouldn't have been) today to see a website following this story that claims the brothers were innocent - they did nothing - they are victims...

                Of course it ignores a lot of the facts to bolster the innocent picture.

                Guess it doesn't matter what you do - there are always those who will excuse it or say it didn't happen.
                Signature
                Saving one dog will not change the world -
                but the world will be forever changed for that one dog.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8695925].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
        Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

        Id subject him to endless re-runs of the same episode of The View and Justin Bieber 'music' videos.
        Or Mylie Cyrus with her serpent tongue permanently out, smoking weed on stage and then saying she's not trying to court controversy.

        I'd have topped myself within 60 seconds of watching.
        Signature

        Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8696630].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
          Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

          Or Mylie Cyrus with her serpent tongue permanently out, smoking weed on stage and then saying she's not trying to court controversy.

          I'd have topped myself within 60 seconds of watching.
          Or worse yet, being forced to watch news stories about the Kardashians.

          -Chris
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8698907].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
            Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

            Or worse yet, being forced to watch news stories about the Kardashians.

            -Chris
            They'd have to put me on suicide watch...
            Signature

            The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

            Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8704182].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I got grounded worse than that for going to Woodstock without my parents permission. WTF?

    If they really want to torture someone - they should FORCE them to watch TV 24/7. How can anyone consider not being subjected to the idiot box torture?

    If all you need now to be in politics or law is to be batshyte crazy......maybe I should reconsider my career. I can do crazy.........especially for the price those judges are getting for it.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8693561].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      If they really want to torture someone - they should FORCE them to watch TV 24/7.
      ^ This. obligatory filler text.
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8693802].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        ^ This. obligatory filler text.
        HEY YEAH! That IS used as torture by some! And keep it on sesame street for the most annoying letter they can find! Play that one part OVER AND OVER AND OVER again! You'll have him BEGGING to have it REMOVED!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8693824].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Good to see someone stands up to ACLU demands.

          The only change I'd make is to plaster his cell with pictures of the dead and injured and his dead brother.

          Last I looked, TV, radio and group prayer were not inalienable rights.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world -
          but the world will be forever changed for that one dog.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8694110].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
            I'd love to see if I'd get the TV if I blew up people in his part of the world in the name of.....oh yes, the same person.

            I doubt I'd have hands to change programs. Or breath and life for that matter.

            Oh for the joy of lawyers and "human" rights.
            Signature

            Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8694820].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              A bigger issue is not allowing his lawyers to interview "witnesses".
              If the govt. continues along that line, they are giving his attorneys a built in appeal to his conviction.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8695051].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                A bigger issue is not allowing his lawyers to interview "witnesses".
                If the govt. continues along that line, they are giving his attorneys a built in appeal to his conviction.
                Not necessarily - not unless they repeal the NDAA.

                However - why aren't they allowing witnesses to be questioned? That doesn't sound kosher to me at all. Makes it sound like another Benghazi. If witnesses are kept quiet.....what the hell REALLY went on? I don't like this aspect at all. When I hear this king of crap, it just makes me think "false flag". Exactly wtf are they afraid the witnesses might have to say?
                Signature

                Sal
                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                Beyond the Path

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8695121].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                  Not necessarily - not unless they repeal the NDAA.

                  However - why aren't they allowing witnesses to be questioned? That doesn't sound kosher to me at all. Makes it sound like another Benghazi. If witnesses are kept quiet.....what the hell REALLY went on? I don't like this aspect at all. When I hear this king of crap, it just makes me think "false flag". Exactly wtf are they afraid the witnesses might have to say?
                  NDAA has nothing to do with it as he was arrested and is receiving a trial.
                  Their not allowing his defense attorneys to question or interview the witnesses before the trial. That prevents them from mounting a proper defense. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys are suppose to have access to all evidence and witnesses that either side is presenting in court. That way they can prepare for the trial properly.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8695306].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    NDAA has nothing to do with it as he was arrested and is receiving a trial.
                    Their not allowing his defense attorneys to question or interview the witnesses before the trial. That prevents them from mounting a proper defense. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys are suppose to have access to all evidence and witnesses that either side is presenting in court. That way they can prepare for the trial properly.
                    Yeah, okay. You are definitely right - and I'm still wondering why they are doing this. Obviously, there are things we aren't supposed to find out about what happened. Nothing to see here folks...move along.
                    Signature

                    Sal
                    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                    Beyond the Path

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8695356].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                      A bigger issue is not allowing his lawyers to interview "witnesses".
                      If the govt. continues along that line, they are giving his attorneys a built in appeal to his conviction.
                      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                      ...However - why aren't they allowing witnesses to be questioned?...
                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                      ...Their not allowing his defense attorneys to question or interview the witnesses before the trial....
                      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                      Yeah, okay. You are definitely right - and I'm still wondering why they are doing this...
                      I'm genuinely confused here. I can't find any mention anywhere (maybe my Googling skills are the problem, I don't know) that DT's attorney's can't interview any or certain witnesses.

                      I know there's an argument on the scope and substance of what the defense is entitled to from the prosecution. Much of that argument revolves around that the defense is looking for 'mitigating' evidence much too early in the process, and isn't entitled to it at this stage.
                      Signature

                      The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                      Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8704179].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                        I'm genuinely confused here. I can't find any mention anywhere (maybe my Googling skills are the problem, I don't know) that DT's attorney's can't interview any or certain witnesses.

                        I know there's an argument on the scope and substance of what the defense is entitled to from the prosecution. Much of that argument revolves around that the defense is looking for 'mitigating' evidence much too early in the process, and isn't entitled to it at this stage.
                        I haven't heard a lot about it Steve.
                        In fact I have a feeling it has been resolved as it hasn't been on the news since I first heard the story.
                        I know it wasn't considered a big deal, just a minor procedural thing.
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8704839].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

    ACLU booted from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hearing | Boston Herald

    ACLU booted from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hearing | Boston Herald

    Quote:
    The former UMass Dartmouth student’s taxpayer-funded counsel will go before O’Toole tomorrow to argue for vacating what they deem “extraordinary and severe” restrictions they liken to “torture,” including that Tsarnaev is denied TV and radio, family photos, prayer with other inmates and visitation from anyone other than his lawyers and immediate family,
    (LMFAO)


    -Chris
    Now you see, THIS is the kind of reason the US is going down. That is how prison is SUPPOSED TO BE! Did you know some WORK PLACES don't allow pictures or prayer, or even RADIO and/or TV? SOME don't even allow you to have ANY personal visitors!

    TV/RADIO is NOT good for anything Jail is supposed to do! Allowing them to gather is a security risk. Pictures can be, and have been, used to create weapons, and pass messages. Visitation from the average person has been used for ALL OF THE ABOVE.

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev obviously commited fraud, to become a citizen on 9/11. WOW!!!!! They shouldn't even consider him a citizen. He committed HEINOUS acts that hurt MANY. He destroyed lives! Given all that, he should just ride it out.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8693662].message }}

Trending Topics