Now that Sting #4 contains what seems to be a flat out admission to first degree murder, you’re probably wondering to yourself, is this murderer going to be prosecuted? Your guess is as good as mine, but bear in mind that the video itself probably will not be admissible. The California Legislature, in its infinite wisdom, enacted Penal Code Section 632, which provides in subsection (a) that:

Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication … eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

OK, you say, but this conversation wasn’t really “confidential,” was it? It’s not like the lady said “keep this under your hat” or anything. Not so fast. Subsection (c) generally defines “confidential communication” to include “any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto,” excluding only communications made in public gatherings, legislative, judicial, executive and administrative proceedings open to the public, and “any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.” Any ACORN worker who now expects a consultation like that not to be overheard or recorded is probably relying on an unreasonable expectation. But unless O’Keefe and Giles told Murderer-Lady that this consultation may be recorded for quality assurance, Murderer-Lady had no reason to suspect that at the time.

All right, all right, so maybe Jerry Moonbeam can throw a misdemeanor charge at these two if he’s as politically tin-eared as his Maryland counterpart. That shouldn’t stop the state from using the woman’s statements against her, right? Wrong. Subsection (d) of this same brilliant statute provides that evidence obtained in violation of Section 632 is admissible for one purpose and one purpose only: to prove the violation of Section 632. Isn’t that special?

UPDATE: Then again, she may have another, more straightforward defense, namely the fact that the ex-husband she claimed to have murdered is … um … alive. How convenient.