In criminal prosecutions, where guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court requires a conviction to rest on more than the uncorroborated confession of the defendant or his appointed counsel. Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954).
The majority unduly disregards the underlying reason for the very existence of the appeal, that the accused DENIES the charges he transmitted, not falsely admits it on the appeal, or else why even an appeal????
The opinion’s recitation of the facts is inappropriately written from the perspective of the government by Judge Kozinski, to gain power. Period. The appeal was for show only.
The dissent from the government attempts to minimize the importance of the false confession by taking the position that the facts should be CENSORED.
The problem can be traced back to the failure of today’s judiciary to stand up to clear abuse of governmental authority as well as its unwillingness to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans.
“FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE PROTECTED, BUT NOT ALL.” Judge A. Howard Matz
Judges have come to place their reliance on what the government tells them, rather than on what the Constitution requires.
Courts have grown more and more lax in curtailing the excesses of law enforcement, and the judiciary’s record in protecting fundamental rights has become wholly unsatisfactory.
No other case, however, reflects a greater surrender on the part of the courts of the citizens’ fundamental rights simply because it is told “Trust Your Government.” As far as I am concerned, the Constitution demands far more.
Never before have we condoned so great an infringement on the fundamental rights of so many Americans. The government’s rationales are flimsy, at best, and don’t come close to outweighing the recognized interests of free individuals in keeping the entirety of their fundamental rights.