I am a lawyer, and a former prosecutor, to boot. I never worked in a sex crimes unit, but I thought I'd offer my thoughts:
I didn't see that this was a federal case, so the Justice Department probably wasn't involved. If I missed it, I'm sure someone will correct me, but I don't think the feds just go after a guy with a few pics on his computer. It's more likely local cops and prosecutors.
That said, generally prosecutors have to turn over exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors are not permitted to second-guess what's exculpatory and what's not. If they don't turn something over, the defense can ask the judge for a number of sanctions, the most extreme of which is a dismissal of the charges. No prosecutor I know of would risk that or risk being made a fool of in front of the judge. Naturally, there are going to be instances where the prosecutor doesn't turn something over because of an oversight and there are very rare cases where prosecutors intentionally withhold evidence.
One comment indicated that the prosecutors should be able to tell whether or not the pictures happened all at one time or spread out over a span of time. The prosecution is required to turn over the evidence only; not their intepretation of the evidence. So, they'd have to either (1) turn over a perfect copy of the hard drive; or (2) allow the defense to examine it. If they employ an expert, however, they'd be required to turn over his opinions and the bases for them.
True enough, but the more I work on the civil side of the law, the more I realize that ALL lawyers are overworked.
I'm licensed in Florida, D.C. and Maryland (and hopefully soon will be in Virginia). Every place I've been that "drafts" lawyers for such work works from a voluntary list. It's not outside the realm of possibility that some places mandate that all attorneys are required to serve as criminal defense lawyers for indigent defendants, but it doesn't sound like a wise practice to me.
I used to be a prosecutor in a small town in Florida and I've done a little criminal defense. I can tell you that there are as many bad public defenders as there are bad prosecutors. The problem is that, if you're assigned a bad public defender, you don't get to change attorneys (unless you can afford a private attorney - in which case you're not entitled to a public defender anyway).
I can understand that some people will come away dissatisfied with the performance of their public defender - indeed, as you pointed out, they're underpaid, overworked and underappreciated - but I knew a good many PDs who were extremely good (and defended much more than just DWIs).
I just read a little about the case - you were right about the attorney's fees. The company was awarded $50,000 and attorney's fees of $250,000. This is different than an award of $300,000 - of which the attorneys take $250,000.
As for the tax treatment of the judgment, I still have no idea.
While I don't know the specifics of this case, the award of damages is generally not taxable as income. In addition, it is generally unethical for attorneys to pocket a fee that is far in excess of the award. While it's not impossible that it happened the way you relate it, I have my doubts.
FYI: Liquor laws vary from state to state and locality to locality. For example, when I lived in Florida, I couldn't buy alcohol that was over 153 proof, but when I lived in Kentucky, I legally purchased "pure" grain alcohol (190 proof) all the time.
The Constitution doesn't even have anything to do with copyright.
I suggest you re-read Article I, Section 8:
Congress shall have the power to... promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
t seems the paranoid folks think they're trying to sway childrens policital thoughts, but do you really want your child checking out the NRA and gun sites?
Yes. I would rather, if my child is interested in firearms, learn from the NRA than anywhere else. One of the NRA's foremost missions is to teach about gun safety. Would you rather he pick up a gun without knowing how it works?
I'm not a member of the NRA; I do own a handgun and I know how to use it safely, thanks to my father, a career law enforcement officer and NRA member.
I wasn't trying to troll; there's no reason to get nasty. I am truly curious about this.
I wasn't tryin to say that all waste is equal, pound for pound. What I meant was that the potential damage caused by nuclear waste is small compared to the damage caused by pollutants emitted from coal-fired plants. At least that's what I've been led to believe.
As for the hypothetical corrosion-free container you bring up a good point, but there must be a way to safely store this stuff, or at least minimize environmental damage if there is a leak.
I'm certainly no expert on nuclear power, but my understanding is that the amount of waste produced is small compared to what's pumped into the atmosphere by a coal-fired plant.
In addition, if you bury the waste in the desert, in containers that don't corrode, where's the harm?
I don't think this picture is a fireball. I think the more rational explanation is that it's a contrail and it's reflecting the light of the setting sun. I used to work about 60 miles from Kennedy Space Center and late-afternoon shuttle launches would produce the same effect.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax?
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
This is why I'm in favor of eliminating Social Security and Medicare.
The "rich" pay more than their "fair" share, and so does everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a lawyer, and a former prosecutor, to boot. I never worked in a sex crimes unit, but I thought I'd offer my thoughts:
I didn't see that this was a federal case, so the Justice Department probably wasn't involved. If I missed it, I'm sure someone will correct me, but I don't think the feds just go after a guy with a few pics on his computer. It's more likely local cops and prosecutors.
That said, generally prosecutors have to turn over exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors are not permitted to second-guess what's exculpatory and what's not. If they don't turn something over, the defense can ask the judge for a number of sanctions, the most extreme of which is a dismissal of the charges. No prosecutor I know of would risk that or risk being made a fool of in front of the judge. Naturally, there are going to be instances where the prosecutor doesn't turn something over because of an oversight and there are very rare cases where prosecutors intentionally withhold evidence.
One comment indicated that the prosecutors should be able to tell whether or not the pictures happened all at one time or spread out over a span of time. The prosecution is required to turn over the evidence only; not their intepretation of the evidence. So, they'd have to either (1) turn over a perfect copy of the hard drive; or (2) allow the defense to examine it. If they employ an expert, however, they'd be required to turn over his opinions and the bases for them.
So THAT'S why we haven't seen Duke Nukem Forever yet!
How do you propose we do this? I don't know if the rover has a microscope.
True enough, but the more I work on the civil side of the law, the more I realize that ALL lawyers are overworked.
I'm licensed in Florida, D.C. and Maryland (and hopefully soon will be in Virginia). Every place I've been that "drafts" lawyers for such work works from a voluntary list. It's not outside the realm of possibility that some places mandate that all attorneys are required to serve as criminal defense lawyers for indigent defendants, but it doesn't sound like a wise practice to me.
I used to be a prosecutor in a small town in Florida and I've done a little criminal defense. I can tell you that there are as many bad public defenders as there are bad prosecutors. The problem is that, if you're assigned a bad public defender, you don't get to change attorneys (unless you can afford a private attorney - in which case you're not entitled to a public defender anyway).
I can understand that some people will come away dissatisfied with the performance of their public defender - indeed, as you pointed out, they're underpaid, overworked and underappreciated - but I knew a good many PDs who were extremely good (and defended much more than just DWIs).
Yeah, I hate getting blasted by loose bone/muscle mass.
As for the tax treatment of the judgment, I still have no idea.
While I don't know the specifics of this case, the award of damages is generally not taxable as income. In addition, it is generally unethical for attorneys to pocket a fee that is far in excess of the award. While it's not impossible that it happened the way you relate it, I have my doubts.
I don't even want to imagine what "Salad Cream" is.
(yes, I'm an American)
Errr..... right. Sorry 'bout that.
You're thinking of Bernhard Goetz, who was acquitted of shooting some young thugs who tried to rob him on the subway.
Just you wait, as these tests become cheaper and easier, a whole new round of law suits will ensue.
FYI: Liquor laws vary from state to state and locality to locality. For example, when I lived in Florida, I couldn't buy alcohol that was over 153 proof, but when I lived in Kentucky, I legally purchased "pure" grain alcohol (190 proof) all the time.
I suggest you re-read Article I, Section 8:
Congress shall have the power to... promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
What space agency do you work for again?
A major one.
Sounds to me like you've been listening to the great fiction writer, Michael Moore.
Yes. I would rather, if my child is interested in firearms, learn from the NRA than anywhere else. One of the NRA's foremost missions is to teach about gun safety. Would you rather he pick up a gun without knowing how it works?
I'm not a member of the NRA; I do own a handgun and I know how to use it safely, thanks to my father, a career law enforcement officer and NRA member.
Nobody wants to take your guns.
We can all take solace in knowing that the government and the ACLU know what's best for us.
What's the first? Sandwich artist?
Take it easy, have a sense of humor.
I wasn't tryin to say that all waste is equal, pound for pound. What I meant was that the potential damage caused by nuclear waste is small compared to the damage caused by pollutants emitted from coal-fired plants. At least that's what I've been led to believe.
As for the hypothetical corrosion-free container you bring up a good point, but there must be a way to safely store this stuff, or at least minimize environmental damage if there is a leak.
As I said, I'm no expert.
In addition, if you bury the waste in the desert, in containers that don't corrode, where's the harm?
I don't think this picture is a fireball. I think the more rational explanation is that it's a contrail and it's reflecting the light of the setting sun. I used to work about 60 miles from Kennedy Space Center and late-afternoon shuttle launches would produce the same effect.
The "rich" pay more than their "fair" share, and so does everyone else.
I, for one, welcome our new feline overlords.
/Sorry, had to be done.