You assume wrong. I've had to correct code because people coming from the Windows world NEVER turn on warnings. Many don't even know how to edit a make file. If there's no clicky thingee, they're lost.
Anyone who cannot use make should not be writing c code. This is basic stuff. Then again, so is using ctags and fgrep.
Ditto anyone coming from java. It's NOT the same, the mindset isn't the same, the conventions aren't the same, and someone with 10 years of java experience is totally useless when it comes to designing in c or c++. They try to make everything look like java, and they break things. And they keep on whining about needing garbage collection or smart pointers or the whole stl because they can't even write a simple linked list.
If you can't write and manage a simple link list, a stack, a queue, and proper memory allocation in both c99 and c++, you should go back to java and leave c programming to c programmers. The guy who wrote the original article is a java programmer - look at the complaints and the references he provides.
If you don't see something in the thread, you read the summary. If you don't see it in the summary, you read the article - you don't go and throw a hissy fit because you're too lazy to read the article.
And as for the blockqutoe tags, this is an EXCELLENT example where going minimalist is better - <q> rather than <blockquote>, since they don't allow inline quote tags - or they could just make their own <quote> tag, same as plenty of other sites do.
It's about minimizing typos. It's a problem that has caused a few flame wars here and elsewhere, and can easily be fixed by going to shorter tags AND by fixing their broken system so that people can edit posts. It's not complicated - certainly not rocket science - and a lot of people have complained about it over the years.
"an einstein" is not a person or a place, so no caps needed. Or do you also capitalize fermion (named after Enrico Fermi), or jesus-freak. Next you're going to want to capitalize the acronyms html, dna, and laser. Styles change - none of them need to be capitalized any more, and I can't remember the last time I saw anyone capitalize laser.
The statements you have "quoted" appear nowhere in the parent, or even in this particular subthread. Congratualtions on showing how people who think erating is a fine variable name tend to introduce unreadability wherever they tread;-)
FTFA:
This brings me to my next point about coding standards:
Names (method, function, class, variable) are important and programmers should not overlook them.
Most of the variables in CRAP are one or two letters long. Originally, this was due to the memory constraints involved when programmers first designed and built the system. Some of the code guilty of one and two letter names was written in the late nineties. The explanation told to me was that CRAP programmers took it as a badge of pride that their code was so hard to understand and it was a sort of initiation test to new team members to understand the code despite the poor variable names. (My current teammates and I are currently rectifying this issue, but CRAP is a big system and it still is not always clear what dc or v do.)
If you have a variable that is a rating of employees at an organization, b>organizationEmployeeRating is not a ridiculous name, while erating is.
If you have a method that calculates the risk of an investment, name it calculateRiskInvestment(), not risk().
A name should inform what the code selection does without needing to have intimate knowledge of the program.
As for the rest, the blockquote tags are messed up... but I'm sure an einstein like you can figure that out yourself.
Blame slashdot's crap UI and lack of editing capability. Other discussion boards allow for editing/correcting, why not this one?
whereas organizationEmployeeRating has an obvious meaning to it and will trigger associated memories for that concept.
... and it's SO obvious that when someone DOES change it, nobody else is even going to bother to check, because it's "obvious" what it means. Something can be both obvious and wrong, and the use of java-style retarded naming conventions in c code is a source of both consternation and bugs. c is not java. If you're not comfortable with c, go back to interpreted languages like java and perl. (yes, java is interpreted at runtime - get over it already).
Exactly. Use ambiguous terms like erating if you want to ensure that other people are going to have to do global searches on erating in order to figure out what it means.
I would want anyone maintaining the code to look at the declaration to make sure they know what type it is, then look at any initialization code, before monkeying around with it.
That's what ctags is for.
It even supports php, javascript, perl, make and shell scripts - it's not just for c any more.
If you're going to be maintaining it, you'd better damn well look over more than just the immediate code. Look at the declaration, instead of assuming what it is. There are too many pieces of code where people asume the type of a variable, "fix" the code, and make things worse.
3 most important rules
ALWAYS look at the variable declaration.
ALWAYS look at the variable declaration.
ALWAYS look at the variable declaration.
ctags is your friend. Even the laziest f*** can learn how to use it in a minute or two.
If you can't use ctags and/or fgrep effectively, you shouldn't be touching c code. You're simply not qualified.
The other side of C/C++ indirection is pointer logic. Pointers are powerful, but dangerous. For now I will just say try to stay away from statements like:
int ***values;
Instead, try C++'s STL Containers .
First, the code is in C, not C++. Have fun porting the STL.
Second, there's nothing wrong with int *** values; If you can;t figure it out, go back to java.
and.. "OMG USE BRACKETS ALL THE TIME"
if(test)
do_something()
to
if(test)
do_something()
do_something_else()
People get bitten by that once, then they learn. No brackets means a SINGLE statement. Brackets are optional, and not needed. Don't lcutter up your code because some n00b doesn't know how to read.
I've seen people get bitten because they put brackets in - and because their indent style isn't consistent (they used 4 spaces instead of a hard tab, so when they cut-n-pasted code, "BAD THINGS(TM)" happened.
Sure enough, the author cites Java coding conventions at the bottom of the article. c is NOT java. java is way to verbose, some of us like the clean lines of c, and think java should at least get a pre-processor so we can hide some of the typographical pollution. Even the original creator admits that the "everything is a class" model was a bad idea.
If you have a variable that is a rating of employees at an organization, organizationEmployeeRating is not a ridiculous name, while erating is.
If you have a method that calculates the risk of an investment, name it calculateRiskInvestment(), not risk().
erating is fine, especially if it's in a struct, to give you the context, or when it's first declared: int erating// employee rating
risk() is also better. Since the author says its a method, it's in a class. Investment.risk() is a hell of a lot better than Investment.calculateRiskInvestment().
The author is complaining because the code is all in c. Awww - c has different style conventions. Don't try to make it look like java.
He has nothing to lose. The public defender never even bothered to look at the text of the law - title 18 section 2252 - deleting the material is sufficient under the law. There is NO requirement to tell law enforcement.
Also, the law says "knowingly" - it's not a strict liability thing in the US - they have to prove intent. Good luck with that. They can't.
He doesn't have to prove his innocence. He doesn't have to prove anything. They have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he INTENTIONALLY downloaded kp and then failed to delete it as the law provides - they can't prove that because their "proof" will show that he did in fact comply with the law by deleting it.
Never plea bargain. Ever. When you do, you toss your constitutional rights out the door. And forget any appeals - you pleaded guilty. And never believe that a lawyer, even one with a decade or more of experience, knows what the f*ck they're talking about - it's been my experience that they usually don't. They're crappy at research, don't know how to troll the other side properly (trolling slashdot is good practice), and are afraid of pissing off the judge because it could ruin their career.
When you plea bargain, you corrupt justice, and you yourself are just as corrupted by the process. Cowards, all of you who would not fight it. No wonder you're now a nation of whiners.
Lawyers with a decade or two of experience aren't amateurs. Lawyers in general are stupid because they have stupid clients. Ditto with prosecutors who believe the crap fed them by cops who are just as stupid. The FBI is just as dumb as any other police force. Sure, there are some smart ones,. but they're few and far between. The average "field agent" is just that - average. Fill in the paperwork, take statements, just do your job.
KDE works fine with 3 monitors (both with 2 and 3 video cards). You'll probably end up with special effects only on one monitor, especially if the display sizes vary.
Select the action you want to do (move, maximize, move 1 desktop to left/right, move to desktop #, etc), and the keyboard combination you want to assign to it.
... or every once in a while, create a HUGE file that fills up the rest of the filesystem.
There might still be a copy of my old Windows program (back in the days when I still did Windows) called "eat.exe" that did exactly that - created a series of sequential files of "x" number of bytes. It was also handy for when older programs wouldn't install because the hard disk was too big, so the routine would come back with a negative disk size (-85033338 bytes free). "Eat" enough disk space, and the program would install, then delete the excess files.
The man representing himself has a fool for a client.
-- was by a lawyer with an obvious self-interest.
I'll pit my win/loss record against any professional lawyer. I've never lost a criminal case (3), so I know what I'm talking about, as opposed to the lawyers I beat up on in court. I've also served as a juror in a murder trial, and a witness in another murder trial; throw in a few dumb-ass civil suits (I keep winning because people are stupid and believe their lawyers rather than my warning that if it goes to court, I'll cream them).
You don't have to have a fancy lawyer to win a case. Just
be right, and
be capable of explaining WHY you're right in terms that the judge can accept (learn the proper legal terms, how to formulate an objection, how to write and serve a proper motion, make friends with the court clerk), and
TROLL THE OTHER SIDE LIKE CRAZY!!!
Picture it as a flame war - if you can get their goat, you control the conversation.
In one case, the other side said that the case had been postponed, so I left the building... walked around the block, went back inside, met with the clerk, confirmed that I was ready to proceed, that the other side had "mis-spoken" when they said I wouldn't be there and had agreed to have a default judgment rendered against me, and "we're due to start in 5 minutes, can you please page them so we can get this show on the road?"
Needless to say, I caught them flat-footed; they weren't ready. We went into a little room and I literally dictated the terms of the settlement. "Sign it or we go back into the courtroom! BTW, I've got some nice evidence sitting in this file that your client doesn't want entered into evidence" - and showed them, just so they knew I wasn't bluffing.
So much for "professional" lawyers. In over 1,000 hours in court, I have yet to see a lawyer who didn't screw up so bad I wanted to cringe - except for the one time I kept one on a VERY short leash, and one prosecutor who knew not to bore us (the jury) to tears. Competence seems to be the exception. Want further proof? Look at how many of your politicians are craptasitc lawyers.
so you are saying that 1) people generally dont know what guilt looks like and 2) the current interpretation of "acting guilty" is designed to incriminate the innocent?
I'm not saying it - Eddie Greenspan, an experienced trial lawyer, says it in his book, where he deals with cops and other witnesses who lie under oath.
And its' everyone's experience. Even if you did nothing wrong, you don't want to be stopped and questioned. Even if you haven't even got a "borrowed" hotel towel in your baggage, customs makes you nervous. The crook? They're already pathological, so it's no wonder they exploit weaknesses in human responses.
Affirmative Defense.-- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant--
possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and
promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof--
A. took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
B. (B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
Note that you don't HAVE to report it - just delete it. that's what the guy did. The FBI *knows* that's what he did. Someone's looking to pad their win/loss ratio, rather than being a proper officer of the court.
I've gone up against experienced lawyers (including the government 3 times) at least half a dozen times - I've won every time.
Would you care to tell us more about these situations?
Sure. One of them, I reported a couple for child abuse. No good deed goes unpunished, so next thing I know, one of them is claiming (along with a bribed witness - a promise of $25k) that I had made death threats to everyone involved, including the social workers I had reported it to, to prevent me from talking to them any more and try to discredit me.
The prosecution offered to stay the charges if I signed a consent decree. My lawyer said should take it. I said "No way. This is a total lie, and there's nothing to stop them from doing it again. You're fired. I'll handle this myself."
I then turned what was "supposed" to be a 2 to 4-hour trial into a 4-day circus, and enjoyed myself immensely. I knew the "witnesses" were lying, and I was able to not only prove it, but to make them look like total idiots. One had to be thrown out of the courtroom - twice - because they totally lost it (I can be VERY nasty in cross-examination when you lie under oath and can't say "I don't want to answer that LALALALA" - and screaming at the judge to make me stop didn't help them).
The bribed "witness", I did some digging and took a lucky guess that they had a criminal record for making death threats, and that's how they came up with this scheme. I played my hunch (over the prosecutions' objections - goes to the witness' character and reliabiity, judge), and struck pay-dirt. They admitted to having been arrested, fingerprinted, tried, etc., for making death threats, but "couldn't remember" if they had been convicted. After 5 minutes of walking them through their repeated "I can't remember", the judge finally decided to get involved. "You were arrested?" "Yes" "You were brought to a room like this?" "Yes" "And you had a trial like this?" "Yes" "And what was the result?" "I don't remember."
Judges don't like "convenient memory." In the end, there was not ONE single piece of credible evidence against me. The judge himself said he couldn't tell where the lies ended and shear fantasy began. No lawyer would have argued for 5 minutes with a judge over what seemed like a minor detail (but he finally saw the light, and after that, he had a newfound respect for my talent - and it was my questions immediately after that made one of the liars totally lose it).
At one point when the lies got really deep - Judge: "You don't want to object to any of this? It's really damaging testimony. Me: "Not at all. I have 7 witnesses who will testify that I was in a different city at the time. Let them keep digging their hole." Judge: "Oh, okay."
The judge criticized me afterwards for taking 4 days to prove my innocence when two would have sufficed, but I wouldn't have had as much fun making the liars squirm if I had kept it "strictly business." It wasn't as if it was costing me in legal fees, and I didn't want just "the benefit of the doubt" - I wanted a total and absolute no question about it victory - complete exoneration, with not a trace of doubt. Plus, I wanted my pound of flesh for having to put up with that sort of crap, as a warning not to even *think* about trying it again.
Don't ever plead guilty to something you didn't do. The plea-bargain system is a corruption of justice.
Unless you can convince the judge to dismiss based on lack of proof of intent, it won't matter. Juries often don't care about intent.
You ever served on a jury? I have, for a month-long murder trial. Jurors are there to decide the facts of the case. We look at everything that both sides present. The law in this case says "knowingly" - so the prosecution has to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' actions were intentional.
The judge will so instruct the jury. Jury instructions are a key part of every jury trial.
The defendant is in Sacramento, California, and as such, is governed by Title 18, section 2252 etc. It uses term term "knowingly" throughout.
If the public defender had actually bothered to read the applicable law (I know, that's about as likely as asking a preacher to actually read the whole bible) they'd have known that the prosecutor was BSing them. Then again, 50% of all lawyers graduate in the bottom half of their class. Make what you will of it. One guy managed to impersonate a lawyer for two years - with no training - just winging it, didn't even know what the law was (not all that literate), but for two years he argued cases and nobody tweaked to it, which just goes to show how much BS makes the system "work."
I'd quote the law and say I had done exactly what the law requires - deleted it.
I'm sure at least one juror will understand that. Just like at least one juror has clicked on links that aren't what they seem to be, or gotten spam.
It only takes one juror. He doesn't have to disprove his guilt - they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly downloaded kiddie porn, and didn't then delete it. The text of the law is clear - it uses the term "knowingly" multiple times. This is an example of a public defender not even bothering to look at what the law says. You're under no obligation to inform law enforcement (contrary to what the FBI says) if you immediately delete it.
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof--
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction;
You can decide to call the cops instead, but it's quicker just to delete it, and its what most reasonable people would do - it's not like they WANT that crap on their hard drives.
Then there's the danger of the jury not buying the prosecutions' explanation because it's too technical.
The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - getting too technical with hayseeds isn't going to help their case. So, they have to explain it in terms they can understand, at which point, the defendant only has to get their prosecution to admit that the file in question had been deleted, as required per title 18 section 2252 and following (after all, if it wasn't deleted, why did they have to recover it)?
The law is clear - deletion of the file is good enough to avoid a conviction.
And the guy doesn't have to prove he's innocent. The law states "knowingly receives" - so intent comes into it. No intent, no conviction. File immediately deleted, no conviction. Less than 3 items of kp found? No conviction. That's something every juror can understand. "As soon as I realized what it really was, I deleted it, and that's what the law says I'm supposed to do."
The judge will ask if you're sure you don't want a lawyer, and then you proceed. The judge still CANNOT allow the other side to run rough-shod over your rights or violate procedure. When the other side gets o9ut of hand, he or she will warn them, if only to show that the rules will be respected in THEIR court.
Besides, title 18 sect 2252 makes it clear that the prosecution has no case. Why the PD failed to say "go piss up a rope" is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume wrong. I've had to correct code because people coming from the Windows world NEVER turn on warnings. Many don't even know how to edit a make file. If there's no clicky thingee, they're lost.
Anyone who cannot use make should not be writing c code. This is basic stuff. Then again, so is using ctags and fgrep.
Ditto anyone coming from java. It's NOT the same, the mindset isn't the same, the conventions aren't the same, and someone with 10 years of java experience is totally useless when it comes to designing in c or c++. They try to make everything look like java, and they break things. And they keep on whining about needing garbage collection or smart pointers or the whole stl because they can't even write a simple linked list.
If you can't write and manage a simple link list, a stack, a queue, and proper memory allocation in both c99 and c++, you should go back to java and leave c programming to c programmers. The guy who wrote the original article is a java programmer - look at the complaints and the references he provides.
And as for the blockqutoe tags, this is an EXCELLENT example where going minimalist is better - <q> rather than <blockquote>, since they don't allow inline quote tags - or they could just make their own <quote> tag, same as plenty of other sites do.
It's about minimizing typos. It's a problem that has caused a few flame wars here and elsewhere, and can easily be fixed by going to shorter tags AND by fixing their broken system so that people can edit posts. It's not complicated - certainly not rocket science - and a lot of people have complained about it over the years.
"an einstein" is not a person or a place, so no caps needed. Or do you also capitalize fermion (named after Enrico Fermi), or jesus-freak. Next you're going to want to capitalize the acronyms html, dna, and laser. Styles change - none of them need to be capitalized any more, and I can't remember the last time I saw anyone capitalize laser.
FTFA:
As for the rest, the blockquote tags are messed up ... but I'm sure an einstein like you can figure that out yourself.
Blame slashdot's crap UI and lack of editing capability. Other discussion boards allow for editing/correcting, why not this one?
Riiiight ... you've never seen anyone compare a signed integer to an unsigned integer or vice versa ...
ALWAYS look at the variable declaration and the initialization code.
I would want anyone maintaining the code to look at the declaration to make sure they know what type it is, then look at any initialization code, before monkeying around with it.
That's what ctags is for.
It even supports php, javascript, perl, make and shell scripts - it's not just for c any more.
If you're going to be maintaining it, you'd better damn well look over more than just the immediate code. Look at the declaration, instead of assuming what it is. There are too many pieces of code where people asume the type of a variable, "fix" the code, and make things worse.
3 most important rules
ctags is your friend. Even the laziest f*** can learn how to use it in a minute or two.
If you can't use ctags and/or fgrep effectively, you shouldn't be touching c code. You're simply not qualified.
erating is fine, especially if it's in a struct, to give you the context, or when it's first declared: int erating // employee rating
risk() is also better. Since the author says its a method, it's in a class. Investment.risk() is a hell of a lot better than Investment.calculateRiskInvestment().
The author is complaining because the code is all in c. Awww - c has different style conventions. Don't try to make it look like java.
He has nothing to lose. The public defender never even bothered to look at the text of the law - title 18 section 2252 - deleting the material is sufficient under the law. There is NO requirement to tell law enforcement.
Also, the law says "knowingly" - it's not a strict liability thing in the US - they have to prove intent. Good luck with that. They can't.
He doesn't have to prove his innocence. He doesn't have to prove anything. They have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he INTENTIONALLY downloaded kp and then failed to delete it as the law provides - they can't prove that because their "proof" will show that he did in fact comply with the law by deleting it.
Never plea bargain. Ever. When you do, you toss your constitutional rights out the door. And forget any appeals - you pleaded guilty. And never believe that a lawyer, even one with a decade or more of experience, knows what the f*ck they're talking about - it's been my experience that they usually don't. They're crappy at research, don't know how to troll the other side properly (trolling slashdot is good practice), and are afraid of pissing off the judge because it could ruin their career.
When you plea bargain, you corrupt justice, and you yourself are just as corrupted by the process. Cowards, all of you who would not fight it. No wonder you're now a nation of whiners.
Lawyers with a decade or two of experience aren't amateurs. Lawyers in general are stupid because they have stupid clients. Ditto with prosecutors who believe the crap fed them by cops who are just as stupid. The FBI is just as dumb as any other police force. Sure, there are some smart ones,. but they're few and far between. The average "field agent" is just that - average. Fill in the paperwork, take statements, just do your job.
KDE works fine with 3 monitors (both with 2 and 3 video cards). You'll probably end up with special effects only on one monitor, especially if the display sizes vary.
Configure desktop > Keyboard and Mouse > Keyboard shortcuts > kwin
Select the action you want to do (move, maximize, move 1 desktop to left/right, move to desktop #, etc), and the keyboard combination you want to assign to it.
try "applies oral suction to a rooster."
Which would really suck.
Then again, "blow job" doesn't involve any blowing either.
Though I heard tell that Marylin Manson supposedly had some ribs removed so he could blow his own horn.
And no doubt cunnilingus can involve some cunning.
Burma Shave
... or every once in a while, create a HUGE file that fills up the rest of the filesystem.
There might still be a copy of my old Windows program (back in the days when I still did Windows) called "eat.exe" that did exactly that - created a series of sequential files of "x" number of bytes. It was also handy for when older programs wouldn't install because the hard disk was too big, so the routine would come back with a negative disk size (-85033338 bytes free). "Eat" enough disk space, and the program would install, then delete the excess files.
-- was by a lawyer with an obvious self-interest.
I'll pit my win/loss record against any professional lawyer. I've never lost a criminal case (3), so I know what I'm talking about, as opposed to the lawyers I beat up on in court. I've also served as a juror in a murder trial, and a witness in another murder trial; throw in a few dumb-ass civil suits (I keep winning because people are stupid and believe their lawyers rather than my warning that if it goes to court, I'll cream them).
You don't have to have a fancy lawyer to win a case. Just
Picture it as a flame war - if you can get their goat, you control the conversation.
In one case, the other side said that the case had been postponed, so I left the building ... walked around the block, went back inside, met with the clerk, confirmed that I was ready to proceed, that the other side had "mis-spoken" when they said I wouldn't be there and had agreed to have a default judgment rendered against me, and "we're due to start in 5 minutes, can you please page them so we can get this show on the road?"
Needless to say, I caught them flat-footed; they weren't ready. We went into a little room and I literally dictated the terms of the settlement. "Sign it or we go back into the courtroom! BTW, I've got some nice evidence sitting in this file that your client doesn't want entered into evidence" - and showed them, just so they knew I wasn't bluffing.
So much for "professional" lawyers. In over 1,000 hours in court, I have yet to see a lawyer who didn't screw up so bad I wanted to cringe - except for the one time I kept one on a VERY short leash, and one prosecutor who knew not to bore us (the jury) to tears. Competence seems to be the exception. Want further proof? Look at how many of your politicians are craptasitc lawyers.
I'm not saying it - Eddie Greenspan, an experienced trial lawyer, says it in his book, where he deals with cops and other witnesses who lie under oath.
And its' everyone's experience. Even if you did nothing wrong, you don't want to be stopped and questioned. Even if you haven't even got a "borrowed" hotel towel in your baggage, customs makes you nervous. The crook? They're already pathological, so it's no wonder they exploit weaknesses in human responses.
Note that you don't HAVE to report it - just delete it. that's what the guy did. The FBI *knows* that's what he did. Someone's looking to pad their win/loss ratio, rather than being a proper officer of the court.
Sure. One of them, I reported a couple for child abuse. No good deed goes unpunished, so next thing I know, one of them is claiming (along with a bribed witness - a promise of $25k) that I had made death threats to everyone involved, including the social workers I had reported it to, to prevent me from talking to them any more and try to discredit me.
The prosecution offered to stay the charges if I signed a consent decree. My lawyer said should take it. I said "No way. This is a total lie, and there's nothing to stop them from doing it again. You're fired. I'll handle this myself."
I then turned what was "supposed" to be a 2 to 4-hour trial into a 4-day circus, and enjoyed myself immensely. I knew the "witnesses" were lying, and I was able to not only prove it, but to make them look like total idiots. One had to be thrown out of the courtroom - twice - because they totally lost it (I can be VERY nasty in cross-examination when you lie under oath and can't say "I don't want to answer that LALALALA" - and screaming at the judge to make me stop didn't help them).
The bribed "witness", I did some digging and took a lucky guess that they had a criminal record for making death threats, and that's how they came up with this scheme. I played my hunch (over the prosecutions' objections - goes to the witness' character and reliabiity, judge), and struck pay-dirt. They admitted to having been arrested, fingerprinted, tried, etc., for making death threats, but "couldn't remember" if they had been convicted. After 5 minutes of walking them through their repeated "I can't remember", the judge finally decided to get involved. "You were arrested?" "Yes" "You were brought to a room like this?" "Yes" "And you had a trial like this?" "Yes" "And what was the result?" "I don't remember."
Judges don't like "convenient memory." In the end, there was not ONE single piece of credible evidence against me. The judge himself said he couldn't tell where the lies ended and shear fantasy began. No lawyer would have argued for 5 minutes with a judge over what seemed like a minor detail (but he finally saw the light, and after that, he had a newfound respect for my talent - and it was my questions immediately after that made one of the liars totally lose it).
At one point when the lies got really deep - Judge: "You don't want to object to any of this? It's really damaging testimony. Me: "Not at all. I have 7 witnesses who will testify that I was in a different city at the time. Let them keep digging their hole." Judge: "Oh, okay."
The judge criticized me afterwards for taking 4 days to prove my innocence when two would have sufficed, but I wouldn't have had as much fun making the liars squirm if I had kept it "strictly business." It wasn't as if it was costing me in legal fees, and I didn't want just "the benefit of the doubt" - I wanted a total and absolute no question about it victory - complete exoneration, with not a trace of doubt. Plus, I wanted my pound of flesh for having to put up with that sort of crap, as a warning not to even *think* about trying it again.
Don't ever plead guilty to something you didn't do. The plea-bargain system is a corruption of justice.
You ever served on a jury? I have, for a month-long murder trial. Jurors are there to decide the facts of the case. We look at everything that both sides present. The law in this case says "knowingly" - so the prosecution has to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' actions were intentional.
The judge will so instruct the jury. Jury instructions are a key part of every jury trial.
The defendant is in Sacramento, California, and as such, is governed by Title 18, section 2252 etc. It uses term term "knowingly" throughout.
If the public defender had actually bothered to read the applicable law (I know, that's about as likely as asking a preacher to actually read the whole bible) they'd have known that the prosecutor was BSing them. Then again, 50% of all lawyers graduate in the bottom half of their class. Make what you will of it. One guy managed to impersonate a lawyer for two years - with no training - just winging it, didn't even know what the law was (not all that literate), but for two years he argued cases and nobody tweaked to it, which just goes to show how much BS makes the system "work."
Gitmo.
Bailout of GM and Wall Street
Take your shoes off to get on an airplane.
No-fly lists that include babies (cradle-to-grave, I guess)
I'd quote the law and say I had done exactly what the law requires - deleted it.
I'm sure at least one juror will understand that. Just like at least one juror has clicked on links that aren't what they seem to be, or gotten spam.
It only takes one juror. He doesn't have to disprove his guilt - they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly downloaded kiddie porn, and didn't then delete it. The text of the law is clear - it uses the term "knowingly" multiple times. This is an example of a public defender not even bothering to look at what the law says. You're under no obligation to inform law enforcement (contrary to what the FBI says) if you immediately delete it.
You can decide to call the cops instead, but it's quicker just to delete it, and its what most reasonable people would do - it's not like they WANT that crap on their hard drives.
Then there's the danger of the jury not buying the prosecutions' explanation because it's too technical.
The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - getting too technical with hayseeds isn't going to help their case. So, they have to explain it in terms they can understand, at which point, the defendant only has to get their prosecution to admit that the file in question had been deleted, as required per title 18 section 2252 and following (after all, if it wasn't deleted, why did they have to recover it)?
The law is clear - deletion of the file is good enough to avoid a conviction.
And the guy doesn't have to prove he's innocent. The law states "knowingly receives" - so intent comes into it. No intent, no conviction. File immediately deleted, no conviction. Less than 3 items of kp found? No conviction. That's something every juror can understand. "As soon as I realized what it really was, I deleted it, and that's what the law says I'm supposed to do."
The judge will ask if you're sure you don't want a lawyer, and then you proceed. The judge still CANNOT allow the other side to run rough-shod over your rights or violate procedure. When the other side gets o9ut of hand, he or she will warn them, if only to show that the rules will be respected in THEIR court.
Besides, title 18 sect 2252 makes it clear that the prosecution has no case. Why the PD failed to say "go piss up a rope" is beyond me.