Evidence that that police heard you on an illegal wiretap saying that you wanted to buy a kilo of cocaine is not exculpatory if you happen to later commit a traffic violation while transporting said kilo of cocaine and the police develop independent probable cause justifying a search of your vehicle.
It might be exculpatory if you said you wanted to buy a kilo of cocaine and the police found a kilo of heroin, though.
The prosecution is required to hand over all the evidence they intend to use at trial, and any potentially exculpatory evidence. Not "all the evidence they gathered."
Most importantly, though, we don't hold his past against him because his offense was something like "Intent of Sexual Assault," which is something that any cheating or otherwise regretful whore could have fabricated after leading a man on while in a drunken stupor before her boyfriend found out and gave her an ultimatum.
You don't have to justify your non-hate of a convicted sex-offender by downplaying their guilt. It's perfectly acceptable to say that he committed a crime, and has changed his life, and is now a law-abiding citizen. He is still paying part of his debt to society by being a registered sex offender for some period of time.
Instead of believing that a criminal is capable of change, you instead choose to believe that this particular person was never a criminal in the first place. I'm curious why that is? Is it easier to work next to someone believing they're not actually a registered sex offender?
So, do me a favor when you return to work: Consider the fact that he may actually be guilty of this crime. That he may have actually done something wrong, and attempted to take advantage of some woman sexually, and that is capable of doing so. Are you still as comfortable working next to him?
but the bicyclist or pedestrian that doesn't hear the car coming, Might dart out In front or turn in front of the vehicle more quickly than it can respond. Something they wouldn't have done if they knew a car was there.
Cairo was very similar when we visited in late 2010. For added excitement, not only do the drivers there honk nonstop, they also drive with their headlights off at night.
If my employees can receive a check for not working that is higher than what I am willing to pay them to work (or, probably even lower than, because who would work a full time job if you're only going to make a few bucks more than if you didn't work), what is my incentive to maintain my business at all?
Rather than pay my employees more so I can stay in business, but make less money myself, I too could simply not work and make a decent wage.
Your logic is horribly flawed.
I wouldn't really call this "natural selection." Social, cultural, political, and economic factors drive birth rates. It so happens that women in places with the highest birth rates tend to be shorter and heavier. It's not because they're more likely to be fertile and reproduce. It's just that they haven't figured out how not to get pregnant yet. (Or choose not to practice birth control despite it being available).
Maybe they're saying we should legalize it, because in most states possession of any amount of cocaine is a felony, and it appears that 90% of us who carry cash are guilty of it, even knowingly guilty of it, since we now know that there is a 90% chance that each bill in our wallet is tainted.
If you combined that with a divided attention test, it would be better at showing actual impairment.
Are you familiar with Dennis Kucinich?
For some reason, I figured Big Boy preferred submissions in milkshake and cheeseburger form.
vi
Whatever it is, I have a feeling it's not this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90
Actually, attorneys are supposed to do what their clients want (for the "big picture" things), not what is necessarily in the clients "best interest." The only time we care about anyone's best interest is typically when children are involved, and they will typically get a special advocate appointed.
A real good attorney can convince their client that what the client thinks is the right thing to do is not, and in that way persuade them to do something that is in their best interest as opposed to what they really want to do, but at the end of the day, all of the big decisions are made by the client, and it's up to the attorney to make it happen. (Client decides the what, attorney decides the how).
If this guy's goal was to be a political statement, then maybe his attorney did the right thing. I would hope he tried to talk him out of it first and explain to him that working a reasonable settlement would be better for him in the long run financially, otherwise he did his client a disservice.
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde
