Amber Frey interview airing tonight.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am unsure if a judge could tell a witness not to talk about the trial or the testimony - even during the trial. The First Amendment would probably trump the judge unless the judge ruled that the public airing of the testimony would somehow jeapordize the Const. rights of the party. But, in this case Frey already spilled her pathetic beans prior to, I think, the arrest. So, the point was moot

So, are you saying that there is no such thing as a true "gag" order in this trial? She was covered by the gag order that the judge imposed which was in place from the time the trial started until the end, that I know for sure.

But lord knows, I don't want to get into a debate about the First Amendment with you, Jason!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

So, are you saying that there is no such thing as a true "gag" order in this trial? She was covered by the gag order that the judge imposed which was in place from the time the trial started until the end, that I know for sure.

But lord knows, I don't want to get into a debate about the First Amendment with you, Jason!

LOL - I LOVE CON LAW!!!!!!!

In any event, apparently, Amber was not bound by any such rule.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

LOL - I LOVE CON LAW!!!!!!!

In any event, apparently, Amber was not bound by any such rule.

As far as i've been able to discern, the law is veeeeeery multifaceted when it comes to such issues...the judge could decide, precedent could decide, the constitution could decide, some random state precedent and/or law could decide...
lawd!!! the law!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

As far as i've been able to discern, the law is veeeeeery multifaceted when it comes to such issues...the judge could decide, precedent could decide, the constitution could decide, some random state precedent and/or law could decide...
lawd!!! the law!!!

I have always said the Court is the concious of the US and it will always be. AND - I think the framers knew this. But, I digress

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I have always said the Court is the concious of the US and it will always be. AND - I think the framers knew this. But, I digress

yes, obviously constitutional law has the first say. But i've recently seen it be fuzzy here, as well.
okay, that was only one research paper, but still. I've seen other cases where, randomly, there'll be a federal precedent that will allow state law to supercede, blah, blah, add frustration and nauseaum...*sigh*
but, obviously, you have a vastly larger body of knowledge on this subject. But may i refer you to...Blah Blah v. Blah Blah Irrigation Co. Cal. App. 3d blah,(West 1998) P. 4th. 587, 589 (1997)? Just joshin with ya, and practicing my deficient citation skills at once...

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

yes, obviously constitutional law has the first say. But i've recently seen it be fuzzy here, as well.
okay, that was only one research paper, but still. I've seen other cases where, randomly, there'll be a federal precedent that will allow state law to supercede, blah, blah, add frustration and nauseaum...*sigh*
but, obviously, you have a vastly larger body of knowledge on this subject. But may i refer you to...Blah Blah v. Blah Blah Irrigation Co. Cal. App. 3d blah,(West 1998) P. 4th. 587, 589 (1997)? Just joshin with ya, and practicing my deficient citation skills at once...

True - I love Con. Law. Interestingly, people on both sides can paint the Const. to do pretty much whatever they want. Sadly, sometimes for bad things

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True - I love Con. Law. Interestingly, people on both sides can paint the Const. to do pretty much whatever they want. Sadly, sometimes for bad things

yep. goes right well with my point, i think. P.S. did you pick up citation form easily? Or did ya just leave that to the paralegals?