USS Clueless              Voyages of a restless mind

Main: normal long no graphics Contact Log archives Best log entries Other articles Site Search

Stardate 20010616.1052 (On Screen): I suspect this is going to be a regular series of posts here on USS Clueless: creative (nutso) defense theories in criminal trials. A defense attorney has a legal and moral obligation to do his best to get his client off, and when the case seems hopeless the only way to carry out that obligation is to try a desperation move. But a lot of them don't pass the "horselaugh test", and I'll probably be commenting on them when I spot them.

This one passes the horselaugh test, it's just that it doesn't pass legal muster. Certain individuals in Utah are on trial for bribing members of the Olympic Committee to get their votes to bring the Olympics to Salt Lake City. They're being prosecuted under Utah state law for bribery and racketeering. They're facing major prison terms.

The Defense's "novel" legal concept is that the bribery is legal under Swiss law, and hence it should not be prosecuted in Utah. That is, at best, non sequiter; at worst it's contempt of court. The magistrate in the case has already disallowed this defense and if they persist they're likely to get into trouble.

In fact, there's no way the judge can even consider this defense. Not only is there no constitutional justification for it, even considering it would shred the entire legal system. Consider the can of worms that this defense opens up: Polygamy is legal in Saudi Arabia, so no-one in Utah (ahem) should be prosecuted for having multiple wives. Marijuana is now legal in Amsterdam; poof go the drug laws. Prostitution, too! (Amsterdam again.) The speed limit on the Autobahn is something like 200 KPH; so much for the speeding laws. There's no income tax in New Hampshire, so obviously no-one in Utah should be forced to pay income tax. (Or sales tax, either, because there's no sales tax in Oregon.) What law could ever be enforced? (discuss)