🚀 go-pugleaf

   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.

   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?