Officer shares his view on 'Due Process Law'

The Public Information Officer tells the audience he wished that due process would take as short of time as it takes in some 'T.V. shows.'

This was the ideal setting to get an honest opinion of how he really feels about having to abide by 'Due Process Law'... this was a rare and utterly candid event indeed.

Anyone in the audience who may have considered his remark 'humorous,' may not realize that due process benefits everyone--furthermore, the agent's visible sidearm while speaking to the audience may have garnered an intimidated 'forced laughter'--which could be reasonably argued--has some similarities to tactics or M.O.,(modus operandi) used to get a "forced confession."

This meeting was held on the day before John Irons' bond hearing in August of 2007, at the Coker Creek Ruritan hall--
The U.S.F.S.Public Information Officer describes the long and sometimes difficult process in the rules of engagement before evidence is presented to a grand jury--this process keeps in check the 'personal tendencies' a law enforcement officer may have.

On Monday 12/1/08 a 65 page ruling http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/120208iro... by Judge Guyton is seen as a victory for due process, and a partial victory for the Forest Service officers who spent years building a case against John Irons.

Anything that Irons may have told the police--even if it was exculpatory, could not have helped him at trial.

Anything that you tell the police can be used against you, but nothing that you may say can be used to help you, because it is considered "hearsay." --this is listed under Rules of Evidence 801 (d)(2)(A)-- much of the evidence presented thus far was thrown out-- however, the Motion to Suppress the defendants statement to officers after request for counsel [Doc. 24] and his motion in Limine to Communications Pursuant to case law Wong Sun v. United States and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine [Doc. 40] was DENIED.--

If you have the patience to read the carefully written 65 page ruling--you notice the efficacy and diligence the judge uses to outline even the most minute details-- i.e.-- stating Irons was allowed to pee in the riverbank during the initial lengthy interrogation. Jamie Satterfield reported on Knoxnews as if it was a slam dunk for the defense-( 'it was NOT', she only needed to read the last two pages of the 65 page ruling to realize this and not mislead the public).

As of 12/11/08, the prosecution will not appeal the "save Jane ruse" ruled by the judge as an involuntary confession--More from Knoxnews The United States as plaintiff vs. John Wesley Irons defendant--states that it objects to the magistrate judges finding that the defendants August 8, 2007 statement should be suppressed, but will not appeal the ruling. This may signal the prosecution feels it has enough on Irons to go to trial.

Historically, Americans have enjoyed the protection of what are termed "the Rights of Englishmen." The broadest is the right of "due process." That meant punishment by dint of laws and evidence rather than, as has been the case in much of human history and is still the case in much of the world, by dint of a dictator's rule.

• Category

  News & Politics