If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston.com)   Don't like a witness' testimony at a grand jury? Just charge them with perjury until they change it to one you do like   (mobile.boston.com) divider line 16
    More: Obvious, grand jury, North Attleborough, accessory after the fact, Sutter, perjury, criminal defense attorney, attorney-in-fact, Carlos Ortiz  
•       •       •

6501 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2013 at 12:35 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



16 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-01 12:39:54 PM
A prosecutor tweeting about a case he's working on? Should get farking disbarred over that.

Professionalism and Ethics last seen at the courthouse coffee shop crying uncontrollably.
 
2013-10-01 12:43:35 PM

strangeluck: A prosecutor tweeting about a case he's working on? Should get farking disbarred over that.

Professionalism and Ethics last seen at the courthouse coffee shop crying uncontrollably.


Twitter is terrible in general, but the case has national interest, and the indictment is public information.  Why should he be disbarred?

Also, let me know if you have any idea WTF subby is talking about.

Thanks.
 
2013-10-01 12:53:06 PM
"Never trust a Grand Jury" - Junior High Civics class.
 
2013-10-01 01:19:54 PM
You're telling me he was going to marry the woman in the photo?  The dude was a pro football player and that was the best he could do?  Well, sure, maybe she has a great personality or something, but, I mean she's a little butch looking, don't you think?
 
2013-10-01 01:29:14 PM

The Muthaship: strangeluck: A prosecutor tweeting about a case he's working on? Should get farking disbarred over that.

Professionalism and Ethics last seen at the courthouse coffee shop crying uncontrollably.

Twitter is terrible in general, but the case has national interest, and the indictment is public information.  Why should he be disbarred?

Also, let me know if you have any idea WTF subby is talking about.

Thanks.


It is a violation of the attorneys' code of conduct to provide sensitive information about a case to the general public, especially if you are withholding that information from opposing counsel. In this case, the prosecutor told the press (Twitter) that he was charging a witness with a crime, but he did so without actually telling the court about the charge, nor her attorney. It is a breach of protocol to withhold such information from the court.
 
2013-10-01 01:32:46 PM
Almost forgot:

More importantly, if the court was not informed of his intent to charge the witness with perjury, he could be found guilty of witness tampering. Threatening a witness with jail time in exchange for testimony is not tolerated.
 
2013-10-01 01:35:39 PM

Loreweaver: It is a violation of the attorneys' code of conduct to provide sensitive information about a case to the general public, especially if you are withholding that information from opposing counsel. In this case, the prosecutor told the press (Twitter) that he was charging a witness with a crime, but he did so without actually telling the court about the charge, nor her attorney. It is a breach of protocol to withhold such information from the court.


What did he put on Twitter?  The article indicated that the defense attorney learned of the indictment on Twitter.  There wouldn't be any ethical problem releasing that, since it's public info.  And, while it's courteous to inform defense counsel that you are indicting their client (if you know they have an attorney and who it is), it's not required.  If he was talking about the case prior to the indictment and releasing non-public info, then yes, that's a bad thing.
 
2013-10-01 01:39:42 PM
where she pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to commit accessory after the fact of Lloyd's murder.

That is one of the most arcane charges I've ever heard of.

And by the way, this story is why you take the 5th with grand juries and refuse to talk to the cops. If they can dredge up just one person whose account of events differs from yours, then you can be threatened with charges of perjury or giving false statements. Don't give them the opening.
 
2013-10-01 01:47:10 PM
redalertpolitics.com

I committed perjury as well....and nothing happened to me...power has its privileges!
 
2013-10-01 01:48:03 PM
Can't find anything in his Twitter....
 
2013-10-01 01:50:22 PM
The article was light on details. What did the say the was perjurous?
 
2013-10-01 03:52:06 PM

jjorsett: where she pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to commit accessory after the fact of Lloyd's murder.

That is one of the most arcane charges I've ever heard of.


What does it even mean? That she conspired with someone to learn about a murder in order to not tell the authorities?
 
2013-10-01 04:29:44 PM
www.greenisthenewred.com
 
2013-10-01 06:35:17 PM
A cousin was charged with "conspiracy to commit accessory after the fact"?!?  Does the court in question even understand how English works?!?
 
2013-10-01 07:42:36 PM

DerAppie: jjorsett: where she pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to commit accessory after the fact of Lloyd's murder.

That is one of the most arcane charges I've ever heard of.

What does it even mean? That she conspired with someone to learn about a murder in order to not tell the authorities?



My guess would be that they're saying she didn't help the principal felon or an accessory before the fact, so she isn't an accessory after the fact herself, but she conspired with the guys who *were* accessories after the fact, to help them to flee or hide evidence or whatever.

/alternatively, maybe they think they can prove that she agreed to help but they're having trouble showing what she actually did
 
2013-10-01 11:59:10 PM

prjindigo: A cousin was charged with "conspiracy to commit accessory after the fact"?!?  Does the court in question even understand how English works?!?


In other words, planning together with someone to hide a body or cover the tracks of the person who actually committed the murder. Nothing unusual or difficult to understand about it, if you speak English.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report