Comments on: Protecting the Guilty

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:48:27 +0000

Phelps: you’re right, as to the evidentiary issue. AG Moonbeam could still go after O’Keefe and Giles for making the recording, though. I doubt he’ll be that stupid, but stranger things have happened.

Paratrooper: Nah, the same crime obtains “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.” So if they’d had the conversation on the radio, it would have been legal to tape it. If it had been transmitted on any other electronic device, the same rule would apply as did apply in person.

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:37:48 +0000

632 seems to require that the conversation be transmitted electronically in order for it to be a crime to record it?

By: Phelps

Phelps — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:35:06 +0000

Since it appears that all her husbands are accounted for, I think the issue is probably moot. .-= Phelps´s last blog ..Patriot Act =-.

By: nk

nk — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:51:09 +0000

The tape is not necessary. O’Keefe and Hannah can testify to the confession. That’s how it usually happens with snitches. Very few are wired.

However, a confession alone is not sufficient to convict. There must be corroborating evidence. The police will need to reopen the case.