The Miraculous Works Of The Criminal Justice System

from the the-impossible-is-the-mundane dept

Thanks to its ingenuity and expeditiousness, the criminal justice system — from the cops busting perps to judges presiding over arraignments — is able to perform small miracles. The impossible is nothing, not when these forces come into play.

First off, a person picked up by police (for minor possession) managed to commit (inadvertent) suicide with a gun he’d somehow kept hidden during two previous searches of his person.

The official statement from police said this:

“[Victor White III] was taken into custody, handcuffed behind his back, and transported to the Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office for processing. Once at the Sheriff’s Office, White became uncooperative and refused to exit the deputy’s patrol vehicle. As the deputy requested assistance from other deputies, White produced a handgun and fired one round striking himself in the back.”

The police questioned his father at 5:00 am the next morning, never once mentioning White was already dead. Police did not allow White’s father to see his entire body at the morgue, but what could be seen (White’s face) had abrasions and bruising.

This somewhat miraculous self-shooting was made even more miraculous by the autopsy report, which showed something else entirely.

The autopsy report, issued by Iberia Parish Coroner Dr. Carl M. Ditch six months after the death, revealed that the bullet did not enter the body from behind, as police had claimed. Instead, the report stated that the bullet penetrated White’s chest from the front, perforated his heart and left lung, then exited through his left armpit and injured his upper left arm.

So, apparently White, with his hands cuffed behind him, shot himself in the chest. The coroner’s report also noticed a couple of other things at odds with the official explanation.

According to the report, the forensic pathologist found gunshot residue in the wound, but not the sort of stippling that a close-range shot can sometimes produce. He also found abrasions on White’s face.

If you thought this miraculous event would have prompted a full investigation, your faith is sadly misplaced. Despite nothing agreeing with the official narrative, the coroner still found the officers’ description of the incident largely believable.

Dr. Carl Ditch ruled that White shot himself, and declared his death a suicide.

Ditch cited White’s “body habitus” as making this highly unlikely event possible. No explanations were given as to how multiple police failed to spot a gun during two pat-downs, nor as to why the involved officers and White weren’t tested for powder residue.

From one miracle to another. You’d think having a completely airtight alibi would result in charges being dismissed. And this wasn’t just any airtight alibi, this was one that could be confirmed by law enforcement officers and their official records. But somehow, because the criminal justice system moves in frustrating and mysterious ways — this alibi still wasn’t good enough.

This is how we come to meet Tyree Threatt, 21 years old, facing charges of mugging a woman on June 27. They didn’t arrest him that day, of course, but she gave a description of the mugger. A few weeks later, officers saw Threatt and determined he matched the description. Then they put his photo in a lineup and she picked him out.

“Two days after that, a court commissioner signed a warrant for Threatt on a raft of charges, including armed robbery and using a firearm in a violent crime, each of which carries a maximum 20-year prison sentence. Threatt was arrested over the weekend, according to court records.”

So there he was, facing a crap load of jail time, when the simple fact emerged that on June 27, he was already in jail.

Someone incarcerated obviously can’t commit criminal acts on the outside. Threatt should have walked away from this one. But he couldn’t, because impossibility isn’t enough.

A public defender who represented Threatt this week says he laid out jail records before a judge Monday showing that his client had what might have been the best possible alibi.

But prosecutors said the issue should be sorted out at trial, according to the public defenders office, and the judge declined to release Threatt (he did get $25,000 shaved off his bail).

Just being physically unable to commit a crime is no defense against a system that has been fine tuned for prosecution. What seems impossible is now possible, as long as you’re willing to have your disbelief forcefully suspended by a perversion of the justice system.

But none of this takes into account the law’s stubborn desire to extract a conviction from just about anyone who wanders into its field of vision, despite the apparent physical impossibility of that person to have committed the crime.

Someone who was in jail during the alleged crime will now have to return to jail (or make bail) to await a trial for a crime he couldn’t possibly commit because the system at play here has decided to sacrifice rights for expeditiousness. Threatt’s two options at this particular session were either (a) plead guilty or (b) wait for his turn in the courtroom. It’s called a “meet and plead” and it had nothing to do with defending yourself against allegations of impossible criminal activity.

Overwhelmed attorneys are pressured by judges into forcing their clients to plead guilty on the day of arraignment to “discounted” and “one-time only” resolutions.

So you end up with people who are completely innocent who still plead guilty because they feel like they have no choice and would rather taste freedom again than wait in jail until it’s “sorted out at trial”.

Gone is the right to effective representation. If a defense attorney is present, he or she is only there to advise on the choices presented, not defend his or her client. The judge is not there to weigh evidence or even see if the charges should be dropped. The judge is there to accept pleas. Full stop. Anything else — even something that would take 30 seconds to verify — is ignored in favor of pushing grist through the judicial mill.

In our criminal justice system, the impossible is also the mundane. Narratives only the most extreme conspiracy theorists could love are accepted at face value. Anything that might keep the system from running smoothly — like someone being unable to leave the building they’re in, much less mug someone — is ignored in favor of obtaining speedy guilty pleas.

So, what do you tell the public? That if you’re picked up for minor marijuana possession, you might die? That if you were in jail when a crime was committed, you’re still a suspect? That doesn’t jibe too well with the “if you’re doing nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear” narrative that is pushed by law enforcement defenders and surveillance proponents alike.

It’s enforcement first and the public’s rights and safety are a distance second. Take a look at this chart (via) and see where all the money and attention goes and then ask yourself who’s looking out for you. The guy who could take a ride in a cop car and end up dead. Or the guy who could already be caught in the wheels of the system only to find out that being stuck in the machinery doesn’t keep the machinery from moving towards its desired conclusions.

The criminal justice system doesn’t serve the public. It feeds on them.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Miraculous Works Of The Criminal Justice System”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It is just getting started, look at the history of any country that had a police state and or a tin pot dictator ruling it. Then you can predict just how much worse it will become.

If anything be thank full you still have a 2nd amendment, even if people disagree with it they should go read up on what happens when a tyrannical government disarms their populace. Historically genocide follows a disbarment.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

If anything be thank full you still have a 2nd amendment, even if people disagree with it they should go read up on what happens when a tyrannical government disarms their populace

This is a myth perpetrated by the gun lobby. The reality is that the authorities use the fact that ordinary people have guns to justify having bigger and better guns themselves.

If the populace was not armed then the police would have no excuse for their guns.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Confused

Minor correction: ‘TARDIS’, not ‘TARTUS’.

Not so minor correction: You are under the mistaken impression that the prosecution and/or judge give a damn whether he is actually guilty, or that they care about trifles like ‘facts’. Such inconsequential information such as iron-clad alibis(or video evidence) get in the way of prosecuting people, and thus tend to be ignored or tossed to the side.

JP Jones (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Confused

No worries, it’s a minor thing, though if she’s a fanatic, and you’re not, you’re really missing out on a great show.

Agreed. I’ve yet to meet someone who’s watched more than a couple Doctor Who episodes who isn’t a fan. I’m sure there’s someone (it can be a bit cheesy at times) but so far every skeptical person loves it by the end of the first season. I was one of those skeptical people…and now I think bowties are cool =).

Lurker Keith says:

Re: Confused

If it happens to be a Type-40 TARDIS (Time & Relative Dimension/s In Space), that’s also a good alibi for not being able to commit the crime. The Type-40 would malfunction constantly, meaning managing to materialize at will when & where the pilot wanted to rarely ever happened (it also requires 6 people to operate it correctly). Also, they were also all decommissioned (the Doctor stole his — the TARDIS would claim it kidnapped him, though) due to age, so there aren’t many in use (much less any that function properly).

David says:

Re: Confused

Obviously he is quite capable of committing a mugging. He’s black, and he is a bad enough guy that he was already in jail. The only thing that kept him from going through with the mugging was his fuzzy head being unable to properly schedule in his jail sentence.

So while the police should be lauded for thwarting this attempted mugging, the police’s success at doing so should not cause him to get off free. He still needs to serve time for an attempted mugging.

A jail term should be a punishment. What country would this be if a crook would be rewarded for being in jail by getting a free pass to mug anybody while being jailed?

That One Guy (profile) says:

‘According to the report, the forensic pathologist found gunshot residue in the wound, but not the sort of stippling that a close-range shot can sometimes produce. He also found abrasions on White’s face.’

‘Dr. Carl Ditch ruled that White shot himself, and declared his death a suicide.’

So someone with their hands cuffed behind their back managed to shoot themself, at range, and rough their face up in the process. Also of note, if he shot himself, I assume there was gunpowder residue on his fingers/hands, or did the corpse somehow wash his hands after the deed?

The ‘doctor’s’ findings don’t make any sense whatsoever, unless he’s using abusive spouse logic of ‘I didn’t want to hit them, but they made me do it.’ Under that ‘logic’, yeah, I could totally believe he ‘shot himself’.

The second story, not really much to say, it’s pretty obvious none of those involved give a damn about finding the guilty party, they just want another notch to add to the tally of ‘guilty’ people convicted.

David says:

Re: Re:

So someone with their hands cuffed behind their back managed to shoot themself, at range, and rough their face up in the process.

I don’t see anything suspicious with that account. Obviously when shooting yourself in the chest with your hands tied behind your back, the bullet would have to travel once around the world. If you are going to fire such a gun with tied hands, I want to see you avoid having your face roughed up when the recoil kicks you in the back. It’s a miracle he managed to get up in time for the bullet to hit him in the chest.

Anonymous Coward says:

not much of an advert for justice, is it? getting convictions are far more important than finding out the truth or the actual perpetrators. just like those two guys who have spent 30 years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit. just think of how you would feel if you were suddenly let loose in today’s world, having only seen portrayed on the TV the multitude of changes that have taken place over 30years. that prospect is probably more frightening than staying in prison! the real crime is with the police officers and the prosecutor none of whom did their job properly being only interested in finding someone to blame, someone to take the rap!!

zip says:

coroners as mind-readers, if not gods

This is my biggest complaint about coroners (or “medical examiners”) in general: they don’t just stick to known facts, but will make an assessment – essentially a legal determination – based on pure guesswork. For instance, if a dead, broken-boned body is found at the base of a cliff or tall building, it’s not hard to figure out if the death was caused by a fall. But a coroner will go beyond that, categorically “determining” that the death was an accident, or suicide — or perhaps even a homicide — based on little more than pure conjecture. (The recent James Brady “homicide” takes it to a ridiculous new extreme)

Putting aside the other oddities for a moment, maybe the handcuffed guy in police custody didn’t have suicide on his mind, but accidentally shot himself while trying to take aim at the cop in the front seat. Isn’t that scenario equally plausible? (or is every death due to threatening a cop with a gun automatically judged as “suicide”?)

The real tragedy is that the opinion of a coroner has far-reaching consequences. It can literally become the force of law. For the question of whether a life-insurance policy pays off or not, for instance, the coroner becomes judge, jury, and executioner, and there is generally no appeal possible.

Trevor says:

Re: coroners as mind-readers, if not gods

Putting aside the other oddities for a moment, maybe the handcuffed guy in police custody didn’t have suicide on his mind, but accidentally shot himself while trying to take aim at the cop in the front seat. Isn’t that scenario equally plausible? (or is every death due to threatening a cop with a gun automatically judged as “suicide”?)


His hands were handcuffed together, behind his back.

He was left handed.

The bullet entered through the right side of his chest, and exited out of the left side near his arm.

The wound had gunpowder residue, but not in a manner consistent with a “point blank” shot.

No gunpowder residue was found (or even checked for) on his hands or the hands of the officers.

His face was scuffed up, too.

Those are the facts as we know them. Based on those facts, what do YOU think happened?

Binko Barnes (profile) says:

The fact that we are outraged or even surprised by things like this is because we don’t really want to recognize some of the more unpleasant aspects of human nature.

When people are placed within a power structure and given incentives such as increased status or money or position, they are typically capable of committing the most repugnant of actions and happily accepting the standard rationalization provided within the power structure. Most people have a very weak sense of personal morality that is easily overridden by group dynamics.

Additionally, dominant personality types will work incessantly to build power structures, expand power structures and seek out ties with other power structures in order to increase their personal opportunities for gain.

This is why our government has become so intensely dominant in our lives. The multitude of government power structures have grown to such a degree and become interconnected to such a degree that there is probably no way to reverse course short of a complete collapse and rebuild.

Cal (profile) says:

Re: comment

“… there is probably no way to reverse course short of a complete collapse and rebuild.”

Actually there is a way. Know the US Constitution and the Constitution of the state you live in. Enforce them.

Why would knowing them reverse what is going on today? Because people had to have that knowledge “wiped” from their minds over decades of “progressive schooling, propaganda, subliminals so that they would accept what is going on as “normal” and that “We” cannot do anything about it.

First, WHO was assigned the duties to:
– Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
– Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
– Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
– “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.

Who is the Militia of the several states? Lets let the founders and framers answer that one:

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

So if “We the people” were the enforcers, what happened, and how did we get a governmental professional law enforcement to take over and do OUR duties (and be in place to be used against us)?

Dr Edwin Vieira states it so well in his book “Constitutional “Homeland Security” Volume 1: the Nation in Arms”: “That means “that NONE of those tasks are assigned to the Army, to a Navy, to a (constitutionally unknown) National Guard, or least of all to any unnamed professional police, security, or intelligence agencies of the General Government or of any state or locality. Rather, the Constitution’s explicit emphasis on the Militia as the preeminent forces…”

The duty of US citizens to enforce the law was – still is – a duty assigned to the people by the US Constitution. Here in our constitutional republic LEAs – state and fed – have NO constitutional basis for existence. They were created to destroy the Militia of the several states and to bring dependence of the people upon “government”.

The “concept” for governmental professional law enforcement comes from England. Our country had cut its ties with England to develop our own form of government with LESS governmental involvement in the affairs of the people, but some factions still worked to put us back under government control. The “new” law enforcement was incorporating MORE government into the affairs of the people explicitly against the US Constitution as is found in England.

What is also interesting is that Joseph Stalin in 1933 said, ”The United States should get rid of its militias”. Those serving within our governments proceeded to do exactly that. The Militias, who are us, the people, enforcing the US Constitution, each state’s Constitution was a danger to the destruction of the USA. I suspect not only because of being part of the Militia, but because to be in the Militia required training, and that made the USA dangerous to attack when most everyone was trained.

The ONLY legality the LE’s have as our Militia replacements is WHEN they keep the OATH to support and defend the US Constitution and their state Constitution. Anything else voids their “authority”, and the only lawful “authority” they have then is the same ones gangs use – force.

When our governments began to destroy each state’s Militia and to delegate their law enforcement duties to governmental professional law enforcement – federal and state, the laws were relaxed to allow police to execute “warrantless felony arrests” based upon information received from 3rd parties – think of it as allowing rumors to cause warrantless arrests. (actually “color of law”, “pretend laws” since ALL laws MUST be in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution) Then governmental professional LE’s could no longer be required to be “right” all of the time since it was NOT BASED ON FACTS, so the rule of strict liability for false arrest was “lost” (taken away from the people).

This loss of ‘actual guilt’ rather then the now perceived that “might be guilty”, when combined with greater deference to the state in most law enforcement matters, has reversed the original intent and purpose of American law enforcement THAT THE STATE ACT AGAINST THE REQUIRED CONSTITUTIONALLY DESIGNATED LIMITATIONS AND AT ITS OWN PERIL. Because arrest has now become the near exclusive province of governmental professional police instead of the Militia of the several states, Americans now have less assurances that they are free from unreasonable arrests or unreasonable deaths.

The modern disparity between the rights and powers of police and citizen shows up most in the modern law of “resisting arrest”. Any US citizen was privileged to resist arrest if probable cause for arrest did not exist or the arresting person could not produce a valid arrest warrant where one was needed as individual liberty is the bedrock of our constitutional republic. It wasn’t that long ago that the United States Supreme Court held that it was permissible (or defensible) to shoot an officer who displays a gun with intent to commit a warrantless arrest based on insufficient cause. Officers who executed an arrest without proper warrant were themselves considered trespassers, and the owners had a right to violently resist (or even assault and batter) an officer to evade such an unlawful arrest.

Well into the twentieth century, violent resistance was considered a lawful remedy for Fourth Amendment violations by law enforcement. Even other people who stepped in to assist those being arrested unlawfully were protected under the US Constitution from prosecution.

By the 1980s many states had eliminated the common law right of resistance for the people in order to make it easier for professional governmental law enforcement to do the work of the state, plus criminalized the resisting of arrest or anything else by the general populace of any “officer” acting in his official capacity. Then they eliminated the requirement that an arresting officer present his warrant at the scene, PLUS decreased the number and types of arrests for which a warrant is required. They were destroying the basis of our legitimate government, and the level of protection given to us by, put into place within the US Constitution and state Constitutions by the Framers.

The right to resist unlawful arrest IS still a constitutional one. It stems from the right of every person to his bodily integrity and liberty of movement, which are among the most fundamental of all natural rights. Substantive due process principles require that the government interfere with such a right ONLY to further a compelling state interest — and the power to arrest the citizenry unlawfully can hardly be characterized as a compelling state interest. The advent of governmental professional policing has endangered important rights, lives, and property of the American people. This” changing balance of power” between police and private citizens now revels itself by the unlawful power of modern police to easily use violence against the population, and to use unlawful arrest techniques with no consequences.

Probably more then you wanted to know, but still VERY important that it IS known by the general populace here within the USA.

David says:

Re: no title

Its funny when money has more power then truth.

About as funny as when a bomb has more power than an avalanche. Or an attack dog has more power than its owner’s jugular.

Money is designed to be powerful. The whole point of a summary accounting medium dissociated from the physical values it represents is the ability to channel unconnected forces in order to wield power.

FM Hilton (profile) says:

This is not new news, sad to say

When the various states started using the “3 strikes” law, that foretold a future where stealing 1 pack of gum got someone put in prison for 30 years. The previous two felonies didn’t do it, a misdemeanor did.

There’s lots of drug convicted felons in prison, but how much of it is just ‘plea it down, don’t serve a day?” I’d bet a lot of felons are in there due to that one law being adopted.

Autopilot justice, served with a course of “Your rights are no rights at all, except to perhaps an attorney if you can’t afford one.”

Beta (profile) says:

small but important

…Tyree Threatt, 21 years old, facing charges of mugging a woman on June 27. They didn’t arrest him that day, of course, but she gave a description of the mugger. A few weeks later, officers saw Threatt and determined he matched the description.

Did she say she’d been mugged by a man in striped pajamas, carrying an improvised pickaxe?

Joking aside, here’s a line we ought to remember:

Then they put his photo in a lineup and she picked him out.

Remember this when on a jury: the victim can pick a photo from a set of photos, and be wrong.

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: small but important

really, SERIOUSLY, given how ‘normal’ people can look VERY different in photos, i don’t see how a photo lineup can be a trusted technique…
that it might winnow OUT suspects seems reasonable, but to select a suspect based ONLY on a picture seems, um, suspect…
of course, i guess the point is, the kops/persecutors don’t really care, as long as they are ‘solving’ cases and generating numbers…

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: small but important

” the victim can pick a photo from a set of photos, and be wrong.”

Not only can they, but it’s much more common than people think. Even worse, if the lineup is done improperly (and most are), then the victim is often guided to picking the suspect that the cops think did it, through unconscious signalling.

Even further than that, eyewitness testimony — especially by the actual victims — is notoriously unreliable.

So you take the improper administration of the lineup and add in the fact that the victim’s perception is unreliable to begin with, and it’s no surprise that lineups often end up fingering the wrong guy.

Anonymous Coward says:

just another gang related murder, only this time the gang has badges and the backing of the government. like the prisoner who hung himself in his cell even though the cops needed a ladder to get his body down because the ceiling was so high up. They needed a ladder to hang him up there in the first place too if that wasn’t clear.

Either change your out of control country or emigrate that’s all the advice I can give any Americans. This is going to keep getting worse. Nazi Germany is something people should have learned from not ignored.

the people charged with protecting the ordinary citizenry are openly murdering people they do not like and being allowed to get away with it. What happens when it’s you the police decide they don’t like.

Coyne Tibbets (profile) says:

One wonders what “body habitus” might result in Ditch ruling a case to be homicide by cops.

“He shot himself 4 times in the back of the head; and every shot was instantly fatal. Obvious suicide.”

And in the case of Threatt: I don’t know why they call it a hearing, because the judge clearly wasn’t hearing Threatt’s attorney.

I can’t wait to hear the argument about whether or not Threatt’s incarceration on the date of the crime is admissible as defense evidence.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Not a chance, both the prosecution and the judge, when presented with records that showed he was in jail when the mugging occurred still insisted he remain in jail until his hearing, so it’s pretty clear they don’t give a damn what the evidence shows, they just want another prosecution on their records.

They’ll either object to and bar it from being admissible as ‘unrelated to the case at hand’, or just ignore it some other way.

Khaim (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“They’ll either object to and bar it from being admissible as ‘unrelated to the case at hand’, or just ignore it some other way.”

Yeah, no. Having an alibi is extremely relevant to the case. The only way he goes to jail for this is by somehow pleading out – otherwise, the defense gets to have a field day asking all sorts of funny questions to the police officers guarding him.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

And yet, it wasn’t considered relevant enough to get him released. He’s left cooling his heels in a cell until the trial, even after the defense presented his ‘he was in jail at the time the mugging occurred’ alibi, so if they didn’t care then, what makes you think they’d care come trial?

As for pleading out, odds are that’s their angle here, they know if it goes to trial either he walks, or the judge and prosecution are turned into laughingstocks for ignoring iron-solid evidence as to his innocence(on this crime at least), so I’m betting they are going to be putting the screws to him, hard, to try and get him to take a fall- I mean ‘plea deal’.

Just hope his lawyer is a good one and talks him out of it, and certainly doesn’t buy it himself.

bugmenot (profile) says:

Wouldn’t having a jury of peers, fellow citizens, fix the problem.. real people presented with this ridiculous evidence would be able to come up with more sensible verdicts. The drawback of course would be in that forming a jury is time-consuming and probably costs extra money. Perhaps technology could be used for jury members to telecommute their presence at the court while being at home.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...