|
|
|
|
|
by anologwintermut
4264 days ago
|
|
The article quotes the judge as saying" "Defendant could have established such a personal privacy
interest by submitting a sworn statement that could not
be offered against him at trial as evidence of his guilt
(though it could be used to impeach him should he take the
witness stand)"
So it's not as Kafkaesc as the title makes it sound---he could have said it's his without incriminating himself---but it's still pretty kafkaesc in that it would have effectively prevented him from testifying. |
|