Reply To: MA court says burden of proof on state to prove dangerousness still exists


Tim L

Reasonable doubt is an interesting but ambiguous term. If prosecutors actually need to overcome the standard how could DNA exoneration cases exist? If there was such a barr, elected former prosecutors made it to away long ago. This implicates the numbers of pleas by percentage of cases and why some plea when they know they’re not. The state’s power overides self interest. Why fight? You ain’t gonna win. If you can afford an attorney is also key. One problem I have with all this is I do not know exactly when, day and date, I got the new commitment to state’s SOR. Safe to say I wasn’t there nor my attorney. What’s peculiar is I never waived right to process. A very different case than Connecticut DPS v Dumbass.

Too bad my case didn’t get there first or we’d have a different story, but then again I’d have zero control of the docket. Mr. Roberts is where he is precisely because of his position in Alaska v Doe. His ability to turn the question on it’s head won the day and his nomination. The men in grey needed a man sympathetic to certain uses of an electronic surveillance by government agents. He fit the bill.

IMHO. Roberts has always known his fall back postion is. “The Congress made a liar outta me. ” He’d be correct too, in part!

Shame shame.