Not unless the amendment specifically revokes a prior amendment, as the 21st did for the 18th.
So, if prosecutors never go to trial without factual knowledge of the guilt of the accused, how is it that so many defendants are acquitted?
So then, according to you, if a defendant is convicted then the defense attorney should be disbarred for lying and if a defendant is acquitted the prosecuter should be disbarred for lying? :dubious:
Stop bothering us with the facts.
Moreover, they’re only forbidden from lying if you use the legal definition of lying, not the definition that I prefer.
I have never advocated any lawyers should be disbarred for lying. To the contrary, it is part of their job.
Your comment is moronic.
Lying or asking questions that they know will elicit false information is a violate of the code of ethics and would and had led to sanctions, such as disbarment.
Now, I understand that you think that Marcia Clarke and Chris Darden lied at the OJ trial, but most of us don’t believe so.
And rightly so. But other lies, such as telling the jury how the accused committed the crime is not only permitted, but necessary to their job. I am not condemning it; merely pointing out that there are lies, and then there are lies. Only some are forbidden.
Again, you may believe that Marcia Clarke and Chris Darden were guilty of “lying”, but no one else believes that.
You have an interpretation of the word “lying” that conflicts with both the legal and conventional understanding of the term.
I heard you the first time.
Well, yeah, you would say that. 
I should not have made that a blanket statement. In most cases, they won’t go to court on a coin toss. They don’t like to lose and a case built on circumstantial evidence is difficult to make.
Do some prosecutors go into court with a bad case? Yes. Do some prosecutors go into court with a good case and blow it? Yes. Do juries sometimes totally disregard the evidence and let someone walk? Yes.
I thought it would people would understand what lying means in this circumstance. Lets say a murder case goes to court it’s a given the truth of matter is contested, I doubt any lawyer can be 100% sure what they saying is 100%. If we had a magic time machine to view the past we wouldn’t need lawyers. Always thought it was the lawyer’s job to emphasizes the evidence for client discredit any against and try to piece construct a reasonable circumstances based on evidence from both side. I might be wrong correct me if I am. My point was simply if 1 side were to for example fabricate DNA evidence or buy off a witness and was found out there will be serious consequence unlike the press where all they have to do is to print a retraction. As evidence in court are held up to higher scrutiny and consequence for making up BS more dire they will be closer to the Truth.
What about the third option: the press can report to their hearts content after the trial is over? That allows both a non-prejudiced jury and freedom of press. And it will prevent a lot of mud-slinging based on rumours which turn out to be different during the fact-finding of the trial itself.
That’s not true at all. Anytime an amendment conflicts with an existing constitutional provision the latter trumps the former. The exception would be when a later amendment is specifically written not to do so.
For example, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any child born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign consular official or invading soldier, but whether it was intended to do so is ambiguous.
No, it sure as hell doesn’t. You just promoted a restriction on freedom of the press that lasts the entire time the trial is in action. Freedom of the press means they are free to say what they want as long as it isn’t knowingly false.
And I can’t imagine a world like that. That scandal in the UK? We couldn’t tell anyone about it since no one’s been convicted yet. A murderer who is on the loose? He’s not been tried yet, so anything you say about him is potentially informing a future juror.
We should not have to wait for something to show up in court before we can talk about it, even in print form.
Wait, what? Since when? If this were true, Fox and Nat. Enquirer and Sun would all have to shut down.
Or is “closing your eyes and repeating like a parrot what politicans tell you” as well as “inventing stuff outright” together with “showing twitter and blogs written under pen names by staff members” not count as false?
Um, the press can already be told not to report details when it concerns national security or during a war, right?
And I’m not proposing a shut-down, only that details be left out. Saying “An unknown gunman shot 2 people today at the Mall” and “police have arrested suspect” is different from saying “White women shot at in mall by probably black killer” and “Gunman arrested today: black male again”
No, they can be asked not to, but they can’t be prevented from doing that.
This isn’t the UK and Obama can’t issue D notices.
Now, yes there are some informal gentleman’s agreements regarding what not to report(I.E. during trials not revealing the names of alleged tape victims) but it’s not something the government can formally require.
UK D-notices (nowadays they’re called DA notices) are exactly the same thing: nonbinding requests to the press to stay away from certain topics. There are no criminal or civil penalties for ignoring them.
My mistake. I thought they were binding.