Monday, March 06, 2006
THE HANGING JUDGE STRIKES AGAIN

"The only person who can tell what the law is and who will tell the jury what the law is is me, not the witnesses," Judge Ebert said."
Judge Ebert strikes again.
Let me get this right, the prosecution is allowed complete discretion over what to charge and who to charge. Using a misconduct in public office statute that has never before been used in this manner and discriminating on the question of who to charge, Brian Blanchard has almost absolute power. Now, Judge Ebert reiterates his earlier remarks that he will tell the jury what the law actually is in this unplowed territory. Ebert won't let the jury hear an argument about this central issue of the case, he will simply give them the answer, and ignore what is in reality a legitimate dispute.
Why are they even having this trial? Couldn't they have just convicted him on the first day and sent everyone home? Ebert is providing precious little opportunity for the jurors to consider the actual issues of this case. Blanchard and Ebert are combining in an effort to deny the jurors the same kind of discreton that the two of them have so aggressively exercised. Is this a crime or that a crime? Krug or Jensen, Raghu or Schultz? Only Blanchard/Ebert get to decide, and no one else. And any facts that clash with their preconceptions are disallowed.
Does anyone even care that you can become a felon at the whim of a prosecutor and judge? The writer and most readers of this entry could have been charged and railroaded as easily as Mr. Jensen. After all, the political class all engaged in the same activity. Heck, Xoff has probably even held fundraising and campaign meetings with Jim Doyle in the Wisconsin Attorney General's office, but there's no way that those guys should also be held accountable. Right?
I wonder if the Blanchard/Ebert team exercises the same kind of discretionary zeal in actual criminal cases. You know, where people actually steal, rob, or murder. My guess is that they're much less concerned about that kind of criminal than they are about State Representative Scott Jensen and his overpaid subordinate.
Comments:
<< Home
The Mad Hatter and the Queen of Hearts could have gone for the 1-day conviction, but that wouldn't have spent enough tax dollars for their and their masters in the DPW taste. Morever, they're banking on nobody running against Pat Crooks so the show-trial conviction can ultimately be upheld 4-3 by the Jim "Craps" Doyle (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale)-packed state Supreme Court.
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the facts in controversy."
-John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Post a Comment
-John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
<< Home