Flat taxes and taxed servers.

What's happening in our readers' forum.
Nov. 26 2002 7:21 AM

Flat Taxes and Taxed Servers

Readers respond to Robert Shapiro.

(Continued from Page 3)

I got your conspiracy right here: As promised, Neal Katyal offers detailed answers to Jurisprudence Fraysters's questions about his piece on conspiracy here (the links are active in the version posted at the bottom of the original piece). The meatiest part of the answer comes near the end, when he sorts out his advocacy of a broad use of conspiracy in criminal cases and his opposition to the increasing use of military tribunals:

[T]he permissive rules surrounding conspiracy prosecutions emerged in the context of our particular criminal justice system, with its emphasis on the right to counsel, juries, grand jury presentment, individual rights, cross-examination, Brady disclosures, and the like. What I fear today is that the broad rules surrounding conspiracy doctrine can be used to justify the indefinite detention of people in military brigs. These permissive rules surrounding conspiracy only work with a vibrant power to test the government's claims, and it appears that such testing is out of the question for those indefinitely detained. That is the worst of every world … 6:55 a.m.

82_horizontal_rule

Thursday, Nov. 21, 2002

Where's your conspiracy now? "Is this the end of little RICO?" TheWatchfulBabbler asks in the best post title—and one of the best posts—in the Jurisprudence Fray discussion of Neal Katyal's piece about conspiracy. (Today's blog shall be known as BabbleWatch.) Doodahman leads off a terrific thread about the use and abuse of conspiracy. The nut graf:

Years after conspiracy laws explode in applications that are largely horrific (using them to put low level, barely culpable poor people in jail basically forever on the basis of the harms committed by kingpins who are rarely brought to justice), brainmeisters like Katyal bootstrap vague sociological theories to the original legislative intent and call it "prescience".

Piney's response stresses the coconspirator statements as an exception to the hearsay rule:

[T]he REAL real reason the feds love conspiracy charges is Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). That lovely provision says that a hearsay statement ... is somehow transformed into being NOT hearsay if it is "a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy." ... A powerful tool indeed, especially when [one conspirator] rolls over and enhances his standing with Team America by describing conversations he says he had out on the street with [his coconspirator] some years (or days) ago.

(Another great Piney post here.) Katyal is travelling today, but expects to respond tomorrow. Fraywatch will update. ...

Kipling and kinesiology: Responding to Chatterbox's rewriting of Kipling for an era when "fighting" is called "kinetic warfare," Eldoktor improves the scansion with this:

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Give him an emetic!'

But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the U.K goes kinetic. ... 7:40 a.m.

J.D. Connor is assistant professor of English and of Visual and Environmental Studies at Harvard. He is working on a book about neoclassical Hollywood.

  Slate Plus
Slate Picks
Dec. 19 2014 4:15 PM What Happened at Slate This Week? Staff writer Lily Hay Newman shares what stories intrigued her at the magazine this week.