Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

deadocmike t1_j25c2yj wrote

Reply to comment by P2PJones in Texas man appeals death sentence, stating Comedy Central episode violated his rights by djc8

So. The guy voluntarily spoke to a tv show, and you guys think his rights have been violated? Are you crazy or stupid?

0

P2PJones t1_j25yfql wrote

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.

1

deadocmike t1_j276uz9 wrote

What part of “the prisoners signed releases” is unclear?

1

P2PJones t1_j27mey2 wrote

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.

1

deadocmike t1_j28n0o2 wrote

There has to be some “not a lawyer or law enforcement “caveat to that. Signing that release should (not saying it is) be the equivalent of waiving right to counsel.

1

P2PJones t1_j2dv2dx wrote

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?

1

deadocmike t1_j2f3mg4 wrote

You sound like you know what you are talking about, so I’ll cede that you are correct. But if I as a private citizen convince a criminal to sign a release and he agrees to film himself incriminating himself, logically, that should be admissible. Because the guy agreed to it. Not my fault he didn’t listen to his lawyer.

Just my 2 cents.

1