Are conditions on pretrial release unconstitutional?

Damocles said:
Again, you are misstating what has been said.

The gag isn't to protect an individual from what is said about them, it is done to protect the state's right to a fair trail, basically the victims right to seek justice. One is not allowed to taint the jury pool in either direction during a criminal trial. One is also not allowed to threaten jury members, etc. or even suggest to followers that they should pay any attention to them, you do not get to put people in danger during even civil trials, it really isn't okay. First Amendment protections also do not allow you to put others in danger. If you know you have some nutjob followers that will stalk the crap out of folks you say are bad, then you won't be allowed to go to the press and declare who is good or bad during your trial any more than you would be allowed to use the press to order someone to stalk someone else when you weren't on trial...
Click to expand...

Yet the state is able to besmirch the defendant at will. To deny the same right to the defendant is hardly the mark of a fair trial.

Furthermore, the defendant is at a profound disadvantage to begin with. The state has unlimited resources and suffers no penalty if they fail. The defendant suffers severe financial damage even should they prevail. If they lose, they will be utterly destroyed. To deny the defendant the right to vigorously defend themselves from the most powerful entity on the planet that is actively seeking their demise is tyrannical.

Consider this, if a defendant tampers with a witness, it is a felony. Yet the state tampers with witnesses as standard procedure. The "deals" prosecutors make to get lower level defendants to testify - and as often as not perjure against the target is outright witness tampering.

Unless Chutkin can show direct threats or calls for violence, her order is a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Yet the state is able to besmirch the defendant at will. To deny the same right to the defendant is hardly the mark of a fair trial.

Furthermore, the defendant is at a profound disadvantage to begin with. The state has unlimited resources and suffers no penalty if they fail. The defendant suffers severe financial damage even should they prevail. If they lose, they will be utterly destroyed. To deny the defendant the right to vigorously defend themselves from the most powerful entity on the planet that is actively seeking their demise is tyrannical.

Consider this, if a defendant tampers with a witness, it is a felony. Yet the state tampers with witnesses as standard procedure. The "deals" prosecutors make to get lower level defendants to testify - and as often as not perjure against the target is outright witness tampering.

Unless Chutkin can show direct threats or calls for violence, her order is a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

They are not allowed to "besmirch the defendant at will", mistrials are constantly called when the prosecutor/state does such things. Do I think they will call one here... hayul no, the Judge would not rule against the trial they are presiding over. LOL. However, such things have been known to get rulings overturned, etc. and some lawyers have been disbarred for legal ethics issues.
 
evince said:
Your fuck clearly is a criminal



The facts are obvious to all real Americans not in a trump cult


You do violence for this criminal and you will die


Good thing you are merely a foreign disinformation programmed bot hole



You will merely get unplugged
Click to expand...

that's why they're resorting to civil suits about property estimates on already paid back loans.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
I've seen a lot of stalking by crazies when Maxine Waters incited violence against Americans, Wasserman-Shultz demanding violence. Biden saying to "beat the shit" out of Trump supporters.

But I've not seen reports of decent Americans, Trump supporters, harassing democrats in restaurants, or defacing houses and cars the way democrats do to Americans? Do you have examples of Trump supporters stalking anyone?

No legitimate government prohibits criticism of itself and its policies. Any government that forcibly silences voices critical of itself is a tyranny, by definition.
Click to expand...

and damocles is for this suppression of speech.

what happened to him?
 
Damocles said:
Incorrect, the court cannot allow the defendant to taint jury pools and thus negate the defendant's own right to a fair trial... Courts have ruled in the past that the state has a right to a fair trial, the SCOTUS has never taken up the case even when asked which means they have allowed those rulings to stand. The constitution itself notes that rights exist that are not enumerated, we spend way too much time pretending that if they aren't there then they cannot exist, it simply is not true.

States rights exist, they're argued often. Until those rulings where courts have stated that the state has a right to a fair trial are overturned by the SCOTUS, and because SCOTUS turned down hearing cases in regard to this in the past thus signifying that the lower court ruling stands, we then get that this state right also exists.
Click to expand...

So you can't point to where the Constitution guarantees the State the right to a fair trial.
Professor ERWIN CHEMERINSKY a very liberal Democrat expert in Constitutional Law who has augured several cases in front of the SC and has published multiple books on Constitutional law and who is the Dean of University of Berkeley Law School disagrees with your opinion.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...nya-chutkan-jan-6-first-amendment-free-speech
 
ExpressLane said:
So you can't point to where the Constitution guarantees the State the right to a fair trial.
Professor ERWIN CHEMERINSKY a very liberal Democrat expert in Constitutional Law who has augured several cases in front of the SC and has published multiple books on Constitutional law and who is the Dean of University of Berkeley Law School disagrees with your opinion.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...nya-chutkan-jan-6-first-amendment-free-speech
Click to expand...

I cannot, however I can point to the fact that the SCOTUS have allowed such rulings to stand.

Again, pretending that rights that are not enumerated don't exist ignores the constitution itself which states that rights that are not enumerated exist. So, we either live in reality where the SCOTUS allowed such rulings to stand and act appropriately, or we pretend that such things never happen and that the 9th Amendment doesn't exist... only one of those actions will work out though. Act like the rulings that exist have happened, it will make your arguments more salient in the future.

Disagreement exists in law rulings all the time, that's why we have appeals and a SCOTUS...

Until the SCOTUS takes up one of these, and because they chose not to when asked in the past, the rulings stand.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I believe that gag orders might be constitutionally iffy,

but I understand why they're tolerated.

People believe, or are at least influenced by,

any shit that they hear or read,

regardless of the source.

Even the fucking internet and social media!!!!

If most people were as cynical as they need to be,
gag orders wouldn't be necessary.
Click to expand...

Free speech cannot be used to deny a fair trial. Convictions have been overturned due to excessive media attention.
 
Damocles said:
Incorrect, the court cannot allow the defendant to taint jury pools and thus negate the defendant's own right to a fair trial...
Click to expand...

Right, that's the job of the DNC controlled media.....

Courts have ruled in the past that the state has a right to a fair trial, the SCOTUS has never taken up the case even when asked which means they have allowed those rulings to stand. The constitution itself notes that rights exist that are not enumerated, we spend way too much time pretending that if they aren't there then they cannot exist, it simply is not true.

States rights exist, they're argued often. Until those rulings where courts have stated that the state has a right to a fair trial are overturned by the SCOTUS, and because SCOTUS turned down hearing cases in regard to this in the past thus signifying that the lower court ruling stands, we then get that this state right also exists.
Click to expand...

The state has the overwhelming advantage in any proceeding.

Free societies strive to protect the rights of the accused, not the rights of the prosecutor.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Right, that's the job of the DNC controlled media.....



The state has the overwhelming advantage in any proceeding.

Free societies strive to protect the rights of the accused, not the rights of the prosecutor.
Click to expand...



Yes the system of justice has rights you dick nose


It’s the people


You just want free criming for the Republican party
 
Damocles said:
I cannot, however I can point to the fact that the SCOTUS have allowed such rulings to stand.

Again, pretending that rights that are not enumerated don't exist ignores the constitution itself which states that rights that are not enumerated exist. So, we either live in reality where the SCOTUS allowed such rulings to stand and act appropriately, or we pretend that such things never happen and that the 9th Amendment doesn't exist... only one of those actions will work out though. Act like the rulings that exist have happened, it will make your arguments more salient in the future.

Disagreement exists in law rulings all the time, that's why we have appeals and a SCOTUS...

Until the SCOTUS takes up one of these, and because they chose not to when asked in the past, the rulings stand.
Click to expand...




Why didn’t you feel this way all those years you were lying about the Clintons?
 
JesusAI said:
and damocles is for this suppression of speech.

what happened to him?
Click to expand...



He knows the Republican Party has Lost

He’s trying to pretend he likes America again



I for one won’t believe him


He’s backed evil far too many times in the decade I have known him
 
Damocles said:
They are not allowed to "besmirch the defendant at will", mistrials are constantly called when the prosecutor/state does such things. Do I think they will call one here... hayul no, the Judge would not rule against the trial they are presiding over. LOL. However, such things have been known to get rulings overturned, etc. and some lawyers have been disbarred for legal ethics issues.
Click to expand...

I agree that this will be overturned on appeal by the SCOTUS.

Yet the impact will be over a billion dollars spent by Trump to defend against spurious charges.

The primary reason the democrats are going after Trump is to make it clear to the commoners that any resistance to the party will be utter ruin, financially, socially, and professionally. Garland seeks to create an environment of fear where no one dare challenge or oppose the party. Our system of jurisprudence has been destroyed by judicial and prosecutorial terrorism.
 
Jarod said:
You claimed nobody was saying it, I linked where both Trump and a poster on this board said it. I am sure I could find more people who said it. Im willing to bet Hannity and Tucker said it as well as more on this board. You were simply wrong.
Click to expand...

He’s playing a game


I still think it’s grind and not the original Damo



He is now trying to pretend he did not back the Republican Party lies



He did


And he will in the future if he can fool people into thinking he cares about this nations survival
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top