It cites no applicable precedents and will be overturned. Citing a flawed ruling as support of the same flawed ruling is weak as you can get.
Semantics. Are you contending that a defendant can't be compelled to produce the combination to a safe, but can be compelled to open a safe to which he/she knows the combination? That seems like a line too fine for even the government to draw.
My question is this. If she already admitted what is on the hard drive during questioning, why is it so important to see what's on the hard drive? Seems like she already gave a confession, didn't she?
if i hide some evidence up my butt, would i be forced to remove it myself, or would a big muscular doctor be subpoenaed to forcefully tie me down and remove it with a pair of large forceps or a possibly theoretical wood welding plastic magnet?
The only person, it seems to me, who should tell the judge to stick it is someone who has nothing to lose. The only person who has nothing to lose is a guilty person. Therefore, anyone who tells the judge to stick it should be found guilty of the crime of which that person has been accused, with the "stick it" being a de facto confession. Ed O.
"hey we think you did this but cant prove it, can you help us prove it?" "stick it", as a response, seems perfectly logical, whether you are guilty or not and nothing to lose? anyone on trial has their FREEDOM to lose, right? and you think that at that point they should just skip the trial and go straight to guilty? why not just execute her instead?
