03-15-2014, 02:19 PM
Thanks for the update, Six.
Doesn't seem that there's anything unique about the case.
Yeah, defendants have a right to face their accusers in all cases. But, many cases involve anonymous tips and unidentified informants. LE checks out all such tips and info and if it's valid, it becomes evidence for the prosecutors (they're the accusers at that point, not the tipsters). That's how I see it anyway. If every judge did what this one is doing, tips would dry up (as Duchess mentioned upthread).
Anyway, good for Crime Stoppers' Director Masten. He'll do his two weeks, the court won't get the tipster identification, the case should proceed like every other, and hopefully the publicity will make more people aware of Crime Stoppers and instill confidence that "anonymous" means "anonymous" to the organization.
Doesn't seem that there's anything unique about the case.
Yeah, defendants have a right to face their accusers in all cases. But, many cases involve anonymous tips and unidentified informants. LE checks out all such tips and info and if it's valid, it becomes evidence for the prosecutors (they're the accusers at that point, not the tipsters). That's how I see it anyway. If every judge did what this one is doing, tips would dry up (as Duchess mentioned upthread).
Anyway, good for Crime Stoppers' Director Masten. He'll do his two weeks, the court won't get the tipster identification, the case should proceed like every other, and hopefully the publicity will make more people aware of Crime Stoppers and instill confidence that "anonymous" means "anonymous" to the organization.