Replies

Seems to me all these defense claims should have been made during the trial. If they weren't, something stinks about the defense, not the law.

Further, the comment in here that the convicted FBI Agent has long claimed his innocense..., my how rare it is to have a person deny charges. /s

Why bother to hold trials these days. When 2 of 3 can overrule 12 of 12, it makes a trial a farce.

I generally agree in the concept of appeals courts, but something stinks to high heavens about this ruling. Evidently at least one judge at the appeals level felt the same way.

Ramirez's latest political cartoon LARGE VERSION 05/24/2014: LINK LINK to regular sized version of Ramirez's latest, and an archive of his political cartoons.
In this political cartoon, Ramirez presents, "Our Brave Veterans Who Have Fallen"

FOLKS, THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE AND PENCIL IN YOUR DONATION TO HELP END THIS FREEPATHON. THANK YOU! We're over 87% now. Cool!
...this is a general all purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

In all fairness, the 12 of 12 were the triers of fact. The appeals court was about the law or in their opinion, the misapplication of it.

“Seems to me all these defense claims should have been made during the trial. If they weren’t, something stinks about the defense, not the law.”

I don’t know if they were brought up in the trial or not. If they weren’t, then that itself might be grounds for an appeal based on incompetent representation for the defendant.

“Why bother to hold trials these days. When 2 of 3 can overrule 12 of 12, it makes a trial a farce.”

Nobody has overruled the jury here. The panel ruled that the indictment was invalid, and it should never have gone to trial. They made no judgement as to the jury’s ruling.

Why bother to hold trials these days. When 2 of 3 can overrule 12 of 12, it makes a trial a farce.

Because we know that persecutors and police have never ever lied or ginned up or left out evidence, RIGHT?