"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip

The government ordinarily exercises great restraint in these matters
Ed. Something else disturbing in the weekend news was Obama/Holder's
statement that we were going to try, convict, and then execute
criminal defendants. He's contaminated the entire US jury pool. WTF?

Free speech. g I don't think that jury pools are contaminated by a
statement by a prosecutor, no matter how high up he is. Prosecuters
argue for execution right in their faces, while they're sitting in
the jury box.

Presidents of the Unted States don't actually have that right as a
practical
matter Ed.

What did Obama say? I thought it was Holder. I must have missed something.


Judges grant changes of venue every day because of exactly this sort of
thing.
You know all of this so I'll assume you are jerking my chain.

Well, if Obama said something prejudicial, that's different. But Holder is
just the government's chief prosecutor.


Maybe Tom Gardner will jump in with an inane burst of polemic for us all.

Why not? He probably doesn't know anything about it, so it's his kind of
topic. g





Such statements aren't without precedent but they are extremely ill
advised,
prejudicial, and cause for a mistrial.

If it was a judge saying that, I'd agree with you.

Death penalty cases have gone to life sentence maximums more than once.
I can't cite a case for you.


--
John R. Carroll