10 Quotes by Stephan Seeger

What this case is about is whether my client is more like the Unabomber or more like Mr. Fourth of July.

It is incredibly hard to win a suppression motion in this state, because the evidence of consent is largely circumstantial.

We have the rules because police have historically violated civil rights. We wouldn't need the constitution to protect our freedoms if we had a government we always agreed with and we would let the legislature make whatever laws they wanted and we would follow them.

We argue he's a local guy in the community who does more than sit around and engage in illegal activity, but spends time being with his family and his wife.

As these types of cases go, this is not remarkable.

The state needs to be held to their burden of proving every particular element of the statute as it references the definitions of explosives. The law's definition of explosives is ironically applicable to both explosives and fireworks.

It's a difficult case because there's two brothers involved. Nobody likes to see this type of thing happen.

It's hard to understand, but I can only speculate that the jury compromised. Still, how can you find someone guilty of possessing something and not storing it?

Is this case, as these types of cases go, so remarkable? This case would not make a great episode of 'The Sopranos.' It's not that interesting.