…in your public speaking or memos or e-mails, or a prosecutor or plaintiffs’ attorney (not to mention a major newspaper) might try to persuade others to take you literally.
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
{ 2 comments }
What makes you think that the comment had to be sarcasm? That is only how the defendant characterized his comment. Is there a possibility that it wasn’t sarcasm?
One can, with sufficient creativity, imagine a scenario by which an executive broke down and admitted criminal activity in front of seventeen executives in response to a critical analysts’ report and then only one of the people at the meeting remembered a statement with such dramatic ramifications, but sarcasm seems to be the much more likely explanation for the line “They’re on to us.”
Here’s a more permanent link.
Comments on this entry are closed.