Originally posted by Metal BrainThe 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?
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
Originally posted by JS357The implication that it violates his 5th amendment rights implies there is no consent.
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?