It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
MIAMI – A Crime Stoppers administrator was found in contempt of court after eating a piece of paper a Miami-Dade County circuit judge ordered turned over.
The Miami Herald reported that Judge Victoria R. Brennan ordered Richard Masten to turn over information gained from a tip, but Crime Stoppers policy guarantees anonymity.
Masten, who oversees the nonprofit organization, refused and ate the paper in court, saying the identity of the tipster could be determined.
Mirthful Me
reply to post by boncho
I guess the coc aine in her purse was fake too?
Or has Crimestoppers wasted their lucky guess on a small time drug bust instead of a winning lottery ticket...
boncho
You can't really make that judgement without knowing the case. For all you know, the tip was fake to begin with, and the judge merely wanted more to prove it was legitimate.
The information concerned a case in which a Hialeah woman named Lissette Alvarez, 45, was arrested on a coc aine possession charge. Alvarez's lawyer, Jean Michel D'Escoubet, said the information is important to the defense and they are not interested in the identity of the tipster.
OatDelphi
boncho
You can't really make that judgement without knowing the case. For all you know, the tip was fake to begin with, and the judge merely wanted more to prove it was legitimate.
Respectfully, I don't agree with this opinion and I don't need to know the ins and outs of the case to take that stance.(fake tip or not)
Hundreds of crimes are solved and/or stopped by the anonymous tips provided to CrimeStoppers each year. If they begin revealing information that may lead to the sources of the info, people will stop calling and the retired police chief knows it.
peter vlar
Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with your disagreement. First, hundreds of crimes arent necessarily solved. Hundreds of arrests and incarcerations aren't quite the same as hundreds of crimes being solved. Second, one of the primary tenets of our judicial system, secondary in my opinion only to your right to trial by jury is the right to face your accuser in court. That opportunity, that right, is denied anyone convicted by an anonymous tip. The process of allowing it is antithetical to justice being served. Especially when evidence against you can't be cross examined. It's just wrong.
"in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
peter vlar
reply to post by OatDelphi
I'm sorry but that's just crazy talk wrapped around the enigma of rationalization. How exactly is the tipster not someone who is accusing the defendant when that tip directly resulted in an investigation leading to an arrest? That's exactly what they are, an accuser and a cowardly one at that. I just can't see how that person leaving the anonymous tip should be exempt from cross examination. If safety is a concern you can testify via CCTV and there's WitPro. If the danger isn't at that level than there's no rationale that I can see behind being anonymous unless they have something to hide or gain from such anonymity. Neither scenario is conducive to justice being served and leave the defendant at a liability. They can't admit random anonymous tips as evidence to exonerate themselves, why should prosecutors be given undue advantage? The whole thing reeks and is in defiance of the "conflict clause" in the 6th amendment. It may also, depending in interpretation, violate Crawford V. Washington(2004).
"in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
spooky24
reply to post by peter vlar
That is how both Barry Bonds and Roger Clements got off-because the prosecution would not say who ratted them out.