Clearly the Court wishes to continue to criminalize «pimping» by reading in «exploitation» though I wonder what
kind of evidence prosecutors will be required to produce to establish such circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not exact matches
thefinisher1 Are
prosecutors, police and juries stubborn spoiled brats for accepting what DNA, fingerprint, video, and all
kinds of other
evidence indicate about who committed a crime rather than having the faith to just take the accused word that they didn't do it?
A regulation
of the
kind described above would guide the user toward a more secure signature, and one that would be more likely to leave
evidence for an investigator or
prosecutor.
But more importantly, what
kind of a defense attorney, when confronted with
evidence compiled by a reputable blogger (who is a
prosecutor, no less) wouldn't at least contact him for additional information?