1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    15 Mar '13 03:07
    I had never heard of this before and I am curious why it is happening. It does seem very unusual. Is the judge justified in approving this?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/12/judge-approves-truth-serum-james-holmes
  2. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    15 Mar '13 05:45
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    I had never heard of this before and I am curious why it is happening. It does seem very unusual. Is the judge justified in approving this?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/12/judge-approves-truth-serum-james-holmes
    The article doesn't mention whether it would be required that he freely give consent (of course free consent might not he legally assumable even if consent is given). Is this known?
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    15 Mar '13 11:55
    Originally posted by JS357
    The article doesn't mention whether it would be required that he freely give consent (of course free consent might not he legally assumable even if consent is given). Is this known?
    The implication that it violates his 5th amendment rights implies there is no consent.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree