Archive for Sunday, February 5, 2012

Defense: ATF sting targeted black males

February 5, 2012


— A bogus pawn shop operated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives targeted black males during a months-long firearms sting operation that was racially motivated, a defense attorney claimed in a court filing seeking to dismiss charges against his client.

But the government in its own filing Friday denied that investigators and prosecutors were motivated by “impermissible considerations” or bad faith. Prosecutors urged U.S. District Judge Monti Belot to reject the defense request for an evidentiary hearing.

The legal dustup comes in the case of Chico Davis, who faces a 20-count indictment that includes multiple charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm as well as charges of methamphetamine, marijuana and crack cocaine distribution. Davis is among at least 51 people arrested in an undercover operation at the ATF’s Bandit Trading pawn shop.


Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

Racism in the general populace is protected by the constitution Get over it. Goverment is forbidden from using racist premises on which they base allegations or assumptions.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 4 months ago

Defense attorney says ... With no obligation to the truth, what a defense attorney says need not be believed.

jafs 6 years, 4 months ago

Since police can lie to suspects, do you apply the same logic there?

And, what's your source for that claim? Defense attorneys are officers of the court - it would be surprising to me if it were accurate.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 4 months ago

Defense attorneys can introduce into evidence things that are plausible, things that might be true. Things that are likely untrue, but need only be believed by one juror. In fact, it could be argued that they are committing malpractice if they chose not to introduce such evidence. Be clear, I don't dispute that they have the right to piss on my leg. I'm just under no obligation to believe that's it's raining just because they tell me it is so.

jafs 6 years, 4 months ago

No answer about the police?

Attorneys can argue possible theories that may be true. That's a bit different from lying, or having no obligation to the truth. If a defense attorney knows their client will lie on the stand, they're not allowed to put them on there to do that.

I imagine they're also not allowed to introduce falsified evidence as well - any evidence they introduce must be authentic.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 4 months ago

I recall having to testify one time in my life, before a grand jury. It was a special place. All those eyes on me. I had to be more careful with my words, making sure they accurately reflected the truth. Because in that forum, truth is currency. It's a special place we all recognize (I hope).
Outside of that forum, the truth is less sacred. I can tell you quite honestly, that outside that forum, I have lied. In that courtroom, I told the absolute truth. Can the police lie outside a courtroom, yes. Can they do so inside the courtroom, no.

Again, defense attorneys can do lots of things. Mislead, without lying. Give possible alternate scenarios to events, no matter how unlikely they are. They can play lots of tricks, all legal, all ethical, all expected of good attorneys. I'm under no obligation to believe them.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.