Comments on: Further thoughts on the Russell plea and its implications http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/ Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:19:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Phil Russell an attorney no more | a public defender http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-9183 Phil Russell an attorney no more | a public defender Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:01:26 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-9183 [...] thoughts on this are well known. It is sad that it had to come to this. Powered by Gregarious [...] [...] thoughts on this are well known. It is sad that it had to come to this. Powered by Gregarious [...]

]]> By: Bob http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-6262 Bob Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:07:47 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-6262 Mark, Without beating the proverbial horse, would silence upon being questioned about the evidence be considered an "affirmative step[s]to conceal the crime"? It would seem so and that drags us on to some tricky turf. Mark,
Without beating the proverbial horse, would silence upon being questioned about the evidence be considered an “affirmative step[s]to conceal the crime”?
It would seem so and that drags us on to some tricky turf.

]]> By: Mark Bennett http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-6260 Mark Bennett Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:43:40 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-6260 Bob, Caselaw -- at least in the 2nd, 5th, 9th and 10th circuits -- requires that the accused take affirmative steps to conceal the crime. Failing to report a felony is not enough. Bob,

Caselaw — at least in the 2nd, 5th, 9th and 10th circuits — requires that the accused take affirmative steps to conceal the crime. Failing to report a felony is not enough.

]]> By: Bob http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-6259 Bob Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:05:14 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-6259 Without venturing an opinion on Phil's plea, I think it instructive to note the requirement in the federal misprision statute of "conceals". Would simple knowledge of a felony without reporting suffice? Does concealment exist before one is asked? Is "destruction" of evidence "concealment"? My old (4th ed.) Black's says: To hide; secrete; withhold from the knowledge of others... Does the above change anyone's opinion? Without venturing an opinion on Phil’s plea, I think it instructive to note the requirement in the federal misprision statute of “conceals”. Would simple knowledge of a felony without reporting suffice? Does concealment exist before one is asked? Is “destruction” of evidence “concealment”?
My old (4th ed.) Black’s says: To hide; secrete; withhold from the knowledge of others…
Does the above change anyone’s opinion?

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-6236 Gideon Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:15:12 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-6236 [quote comment="6232"] Gideon, I wasn't under the impression, before the Russell case, that we were permitted to destroy evidence or advise our clients to do so. Were you? I see a successful misprision prosecution -- for failing to report a felony, the knowledge of which comes from privileged communications -- as a much worse precedent than a tampering prosecution. The plea papers in the misprision case might be enlightening, but they're not showing up on PACER yet.[/quote] Of course not. What I was attempting to say is that we don't know anything new. I agree that the misprision plea is far more worrisome than the obstruction prosecution. [quote comment="6232"]
Gideon,

I wasn’t under the impression, before the Russell case, that we were permitted to destroy evidence or advise our clients to do so. Were you?

I see a successful misprision prosecution — for failing to report a felony, the knowledge of which comes from privileged communications — as a much worse precedent than a tampering prosecution.

The plea papers in the misprision case might be enlightening, but they’re not showing up on PACER yet.[/quote]
Of course not. What I was attempting to say is that we don’t know anything new.

I agree that the misprision plea is far more worrisome than the obstruction prosecution.

]]> By: Mark Bennett http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-6232 Mark Bennett Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:23:09 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/10/01/further-thoughts-on-the-russell-plea-and-its-implications/#comment-6232 <blockquote>Obviously this teaches us things we cannot do: We cannot personally destroy evidence/contraband and we cannot tell our clients to do that either. Where does that leave the attorney?</blockquote> Gideon, I wasn't under the impression, before the Russell case, that we were permitted to destroy evidence or advise our clients to do so. Were you? I see a successful misprision prosecution -- for failing to report a felony, the knowledge of which comes from privileged communications -- as a much worse precedent than a tampering prosecution. The plea papers in the misprision case might be enlightening, but they're not showing up on PACER yet.

Obviously this teaches us things we cannot do: We cannot personally destroy evidence/contraband and we cannot tell our clients to do that either. Where does that leave the attorney?

Gideon,

I wasn’t under the impression, before the Russell case, that we were permitted to destroy evidence or advise our clients to do so. Were you?

I see a successful misprision prosecution — for failing to report a felony, the knowledge of which comes from privileged communications — as a much worse precedent than a tampering prosecution.

The plea papers in the misprision case might be enlightening, but they’re not showing up on PACER yet.

]]>