This is appalling. I wonder if there’s any remedy? Can the judge be sanctioned?
And of course, some people will persist in the lunatic theory, for which there was never any evidence (and for which the evidence against was deliberately destroyed) that O’Keefe was attempting to wire tap the office.
If we can not clean out the corruption in our courts we have no chance of returning this country to our founders vision.
I’ve been saying that for a long time. It doesn’t matter what the law says if the judges are corrupt.
Well, who’s going to stop them? If the answer is “no one”, this is to be expected.
I thought that if something like this happened, the case would be thrown out on appeal?
O Keefe copped a plea, the material is not admissable to any
other matter once he accepted the plea.
“O Keefe copped a plea, the material is not admissible to any other matter once he accepted the plea.”
It is, however, his tape. The court can’t order your car destroyed when you cop a plea to reckless driving. Unless they like being sued – and losing.
We can hope he kept a copy.
Do we know whether the judge’s decision to destroy the recording contributed to O’Keefe’s plea?
Trolls don’t care about the law. Only left-wing opinion matters!
Judicial Immunity keeps judges from being sued. One of the reasons they have no problem signing off on boilerplate warrants for no-knock raids. There is nearly zero accountability for judges in non-elected seats.
We do not normally allow people to profit from criminal activity. O’Keefe was in the office illegally. Why should he be allowed to sell the tape? It’s the same logic as not allowing somebody to sell stolen goods.
Who said anything about him selling the tape? Is this another unfounded fantasy of yours, like the wiretapping?
Hey Chris,
Regardless of the illegality of the destruction of exculpatory evidence, don’t you find it interesting that O’Keefe had proof that Senator Mary Landrieu’s office had been lying to the public? Lying about some mysterious phone problem that was preventing voters outraged about Obamacare from contacting her office?
Landrieu’s weasel act is exactly the kind of crap that has turned independent voters against the Democrats. It’s partly why the Democrats are going to get thumped in November.
Rand – So if I steal something from you, I can’t sell it but I can give it away? The tape was obtained via criminal activity – O’Keefe can’t keep or use it, because we don’t allow criminals to benefit from their crimes.
Brad – Landrieu never said her phones were broken. She said people couldn’t get through due to the number of calls.
So if I steal something from you, I can’t sell it but I can give it away?
O’Keefe stole nothing from anyone, except in the demented mind of Chris Gerrib. The only person from whom anything was taken was O’Keefe.
O’Keefe was convicted of entering under false pretenses. The video was the fruit of that act. Do you want to argue that if I enter your house illegally I get to keep the videotape I took while in there?
Do you want to argue that if I enter your house illegally I get to keep the videotape I took while in there?
No. But then, one of these things is not like the other.
Rand – O’Keefe pleaded guilty to being someplace illegally. How can you argue that he should be allowed to keep that which he wouldn’t have had other then by breaking the law?
O’Keefe pleaded guilty to being someplace illegally.
No, he didn’t. And a Senator’s office is open to the public — there is no law against being there.
Chris, you’re arguing that O’Keefe can’t keep the tape. What’s you’re argument for the judge destroying evidence?
Ken, this “excluplatory evidence” concept is merely the product of fevered racist right-wing teabaggerism. Stop thinking about it! Fnord! Racist! Fnord!
O’Keefe pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of entering federal property under false pretenses. That federal property was the Senator’s office. Any video he shot there is as a result of criminal activity. Therefore, alllowing O’Keefe to use the video would be allowing him to benefit from the crime.
Not a lawyer, but I have to assume that the judge decided that the video is not evidence and/or otherwise doesn’t need to be retained.
Not a lawyer, but I have to assume that the judge decided that the video is not evidence and/or otherwise doesn’t need to be retained.
You don’t have to assume that at all. You simply want to assume it, because it fits your nutty narrative.
So you concede my point that O’Keefe has no rights to the video? If he has no rights to the video, who does?
No, I don’t concede your point. At a minimum he had a right not to have it destroyed.
He confessed to being in the building illegally. That’s what “entering under false pretenses” means. Under what legal theory can O’Keefe have any rights to something he could only have obtained by being somewhere illegally?
Under what legal theory can O’Keefe have any rights to something he could only have obtained by being somewhere illegally?
Under the legal theory that there was no justification for the court-ordered destruction of exculpatory evidence. And despite his plea agreement, he wasn’t there “illegally.” No matter how many times you repeat it.
Rand, he pled guilty to being there illegally! That’s what it means to plead guilty to “entering under false pretenses.”
You keep asserting that the video is exculpatory evidence. That’s an assertion, not a fact. And unless the video shows O’Keefe, et. al., revealing their true identities, it’s not excuplatory at all. Remember, the charge is “being there under false pretenses.” A video of a guy claiming to be a phone repairman is incriminating, not exculpatory.
The law and the facts are not on your side., and I’m done playing any more Calvin-ball, or rather Rand-ball, with you, on this.
the video is not evidence
This is the stupidest comment yet. We may not know what the video is evidence of, but it is evidence of whatever is on it.
The subject of this post is “Judicial Destruction Of Evidence.” Chris has not argued to the point.
Again, what is you’re argument for the judge destroying evidence? Apparently Chris has no argument.
Ken Anthony – I do not know what the legal requirements are for keeping evidence if the suspect pleads guilty. I do know that Rand’s claim of exculpatory evidence is just that – a claim. Considering that the charge is “being someplace illegally” it is hard to see how videotape taken while illegally in that place could possibly be anything but incriminating.
Evidence that is no longer part of a case is normally released to it’s owner. Destruction of evidence itself is usually a crime.
it is hard to see how videotape taken while illegally in that place could possibly be anything but incriminating.
That’s because you’re assuming the conclusion. The state never proved it’s case because O’keefe accepted the plea. The tape very well could prove his innocents. Destroyed, we will never know.
Ken Anthony – no, the state proved its case because O’Keefe pled guilty. That’s what a “plea agreement” is – the defendant admits to guilt, concedes the state’s case, and it’s over.
You have a very strange concept of proof, Chris.
ken anthony – no, the legal system has a system of proof. In that system, if the accused admits to the crime, it is considered proven that he committed the crime.
Actually, it’s pretty standard outside the legal system too. Especially if the admission is contrary to the admittee’s interests. (Like, I don’t know, fines and community service.)
So you don’t understand the difference between an admission of guilt and proof of guilt. It makes sense, perspective is one of the greatest failings of lefties.
ken anthony – from a legal perspective, an admission is a higher standard of proof then a trial. You can’t appeal a guilty plea, while you can appeal a trial. But either way, guilty is guilty in a court of law.