|
|
|||||||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 12 users and 59 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by POLDF on Fri, 03/30/2007 - 4:18pm.
» On Friday, March 30, 2007, the defendants and their supporters held a demonstration outside the Thurston County courthouse at 1pm. The event will protest the unjust treatment of the defendants and the surveillance of the group by federal agents. video link. The trial of 15 defendants, arrested at The Port of Olympia during eleven days of protest in May of 2006 ended in mistrial on Thursday March 29th,2007. The group, formerly known as the “Olympia 22”, was arrested on misdemeanor charges of criminal trespass. Allegedly the defendants crossed onto Port property while peacefully demonstrating against the use of the Port of Olympia for military shipments. Detective Mike Hirte, along with his supervisor Jim Chamberlain of the Thurston County Sheriffs Office, interrupted proceedings and presented Prosecutor Steve Straume with case – sensitive information obtained from the defendants’ confidential email list. Detective Hirte had been present at the Port of Olympia protests in May 2006 and at the time had identified himself as a Department Homeland Security agent. When questioned by defendants at the conclusion of trial on March 29, 2007 he refused to identify himself or give his badge number. Testimony up to this point had included four police or security officers, two of whom were impeached by the defense during cross examination for making inconsistent or untrue statements. According to a discussion with jurors directly after the declaration of the mistrial the majority of the jury was inclined to vote not guilty due to the lack of credible and unbiased witnesses Profiles of the jury pool were sent to an email list that included defendants, lawyers, former defendants, and other members of the legal team. The information discussed through email is protected under attorney-client privilege. This information was inadvertently sent to about 10 former defendants.The defense team immediately noted the error and sent an email to unauthorized recipients instructing them to disregard and to delete that email. The defense sought solutions to the situation that would not result in a mistrial, however the judge refused to hear further defense solutions, including calling in all 10 unauthorized recipients to testify under oath that they did not disseminate this information and to agree to disregard and destroy the document. The judge found no fault upon the defense, but the prosecution was not required to disclose how they obtained the document. This decision by Judge Dubuisson concludes four days of chaos including mistrial requests on behalf of the defense for prosecutorial misconduct, an emotional outburst by Prosecutor Debra Eurich which resulted in the trial being held in recess for the rest of the day, all of which followed months of dismissal requests due to the destruction of a video of events recorded by Olympia Police Department Detective.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|||||
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||||||
Does it matter how the
Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 03/30/2007 - 4:50pm.Does it matter how the prosecution obtained the information? Unless it was through illegal means, no crime. Someone from the defense messed up, period. Try another method of communication - Riseup LISTSERV is hardly secure and easily compromised.
Seems like the defendants don't want to pay the price for the crime committed. Did the rest of the Oly22 take a plea deal?
I'm not sure I understand.
Submitted by Rick on Sat, 03/31/2007 - 11:57am.You think it's ok for the prosecution (or their agents) to violate attorney-client privilege? If it was privileged communication, and the prosecution knew that it was, then you're right -- it doesn't matter how they got it -- it was unethical to obtain it at all.
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow
What I said was there is no
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 04/01/2007 - 12:00pm.What I said was there is no crime unless they obtained it illegally. If it was handed to them or faxed or e-mailed, they are obligated to bring it to the attention of the court. That would be ethical.
Bottom line, LISTSERV is the wrong way to communicate with clients. It's understood now as to why.
Unless you are working on
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 04/01/2007 - 6:50pm.The question that comes to mind in the Oly Port case is whether the acquisition of these messages was part of a pattern of surveillance and whether that surveillance was legal, appropriate, and ethical?
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 1953
Not really. It could have
Submitted by Norm on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 10:10pm.Not really. It could have been obtained through say....you. If you pass that information on to the prosecutors Im not sure why youd be at fault. Communicating through a fairly public online email list? Bad idea? Anyone say, duh?