🚀 go-pugleaf

CatGuy@lamg.com (Milo Shiff) writes:

>   I'm NOT a lawyer, but I was wondering....

>   Furhman would have to testify IF he were still a policeman, but because
>the GOVERNMENT allowed him to retire in disgrace, he can invoke the fifth
>amendment and avoid having to tell the jury that he planted evidence. The
>jury can't even be told that he refuses to testify.

>   Seems that this is a clear case of the GOVERNMENT unethically (if not
>illegally) manipulating the rules of the system to railroad an innocent man.
                                                             ===============
Please elaborate on this a little.  I seem to have missed something
during the last 8 months of watching the trial.


>   If Judge Ito actually cares about justice (he says he does, but his
>rulings indicate otherwise), why doesn'y he simply order Furhman back onto
>active duty so that he will be required to testify?
 ===========
You seem to be confusing civilian employment
with military service.  He is no longer an
employee of Los Angeles.  They have no control
over him.