wrote in message
news:10d56754-93ea-403d-b8fe-77259ebef48a@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Mar, 17:40, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
>>
>> > If Gregg v. O'Gara is establishing in law the precedent that we have
>> > no legal right to say a man has been wrongly convicted, because it
>> > automatically implies that someone is (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt,
>> > then we have entered dangerous legal and societal territory in terms
>> > of the implications for civil liberties in this country.
>>
>> It is not establishing any such thing. First-instance decisions very
>> rarely
>> create precedent, and then only persuasively. This decision binds no
>> other
>> court.
>
> =====================================================
>
> But it gags us all because it signals to all of us that if we oppose a
> miscarriage of justice in the future, we risk a libel suit and a
> massive bill for costs which very few can absorb.
tl;dr
|