On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: > And even if the above were not the better interpretation, surely the > ambiguity on this matter would be sufficient to fail to satisfy > R1504's condition (d) "the Accused could have reasonably believed that > the alleged act did not violate the specified rule".
My issue here is that the defendant specifically and directly confessed to it. If e'd provided either a defense like yours or complete silence, that would be fine - or at least enough for (d). I think we need to take such confessions at face value, or do you think it's a judge's burden to decide when a defendant really "meant it"? (And if so, isn't that a matter for sentencing anyway?) We generally accept, prima facie, that what people say about unconfirmable matters (e.g. what they were thinking at the time) is true. And people should have the right to say what they want, even self-damaging things; it's more harmful to the game to say "I know you confessed, but we're going to ignore that". -G.
