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
...
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?

He was answering a reporters question in, I believe, an interview and he
said we were going to try, convict and execute the guy that was going to be
moved to New York for trial. I saw the video but can't remember where. I
think either "Face the Nation" or "This Week"
He said it just like that.
He can't do that.


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.

He did, and now that I'm thinking about it, George Will was the one that
made the point about how prejudicial it was and would end up guaranteeing a
predisposed jury pool.

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

LOL
The glove DO fit G


--
John R. Carroll