Norm's Book Blog
Drinking Game Sends Bar Owner to Prison

Federal Courtspeak

A few months ago I showed you how appellate courts tell lower courts: "Your reading of this law is so screwy that we know your decision was raw activism."  Today I'll show you how appellate courts tell federal agents: "You lied."

A major development in the district court frames the district court’s factual findings and our decision on appeal. The district court found inexplicable discrepancies between, on the one hand, the events as depicted in an audio recording and reports of agents nearly contemporaneous with the arrest and, on the other hand, later statements, reports and testimony of the agents. Accordingly, the district court discredited the later statements, reports and testimony, and confined its determination of probable cause to the sparse earlier evidence. The government does not challenge the adverse credibility finding on appeal ....

U.S. v. Collins (here).  In light of the Libby indictment, maybe judges should talk tougher.  If people are going to be indicted for lying to federal agents, shouldn't federal agents be indicted for lying to federal judges?  Indeed, as Windypundit notes here, the agents likely lied to their supervisors, and thus, obstructed justice.

UPDATE: Here's a great crim pro quote: "The district judge stated that the granting of motions to suppress was 'almost as rare as hen's teeth. I think I have done two in ten years and none in federal court.'" Id. at 9.