Defense Attorney has just spent the 5 minutes explaining to the judge why my interpretation of a statute is wrong and 15 minutes explaining to the judge why his interpretation of the statute is right. Then he points at me in, raises his voice, and voice quavering states in high dudgeon:
"And, judge, I don't think a representative of the executive branch has any business telling a representative of the judicial branch how to interpret something written by the legislative branch!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular entries
-
With the price of gas in the modern day, I've looked around at scooters/mopeds a little bit. An interesting thing out there is the 3 whe... -
June 16, 2004 In this newsletter: HAWAII EXTENDS ACT 221 Hawaii has some very impressive and generous tax incentives. Considering all the pu...
-
The affluence of the United States and the various States has allowed us to spend a great deal of money on the criminal justice system. Now,...
-
An interesting part of Michigan v. Bryant is the hostility which bleeds through the decision to the decoupling of the hearsay exceptions fr...
-
There's been a bit of a buzz lately about laptop inspections by the Department of Homeland Security ( Crossing the border? Consider the ...
-
So, I'm reading through the Virginia Appellate blawgs and I find out that the Virginia Supreme Court has changed the Rules as they apply...
-
My latest posting on slaw.ca: Drawing the curtain on ISP cooperation with law enforcement – Slaw I've been a faithful follower of Crypto...
-
In the "Street View" lawsuit with the Borings (see: Boring lawsuit over Google's "Street View" ), Google has filed a...
-
A long-time friend of this blog just recently sent me a link to a new decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court ( R. v. Pickton , 201...