# Innocent People May Have Been Convicted... so let's investigate! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 26, 2009, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172 "2009-10-26T13:22:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/41 "2009-10-26T20:35:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You don’t think reviewing the IP’s entire file, plus their grades, intraoffice memos and so on is a time sink? You’re talking about a file that’s probably the same size of the prosecutor’s own files on the case, and largely duplicative anyway. I doubt there is a huge amount of stuff to go through. There might be or might not be. Most of it can be ignored. It depends on what they are looking for. Point is, neither you nor I have realiable information on exactly what the budget is, how much time will be spent, or anything else, and this doesn’t seem to me to be the sort of thing that we need to scream about and raise a cry for charging the prosecutors with crimes and constitutional violations (which is laughable in any case). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/42 "2009-10-26T20:49:23Z")
You don’t think it signifies that a serving prosecutor (in another jurisdiction, admittedly) finds it disturbing? ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_the_Impaler)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/43 "2009-10-26T21:12:38Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Point is… (snip) Point is the chilling effect of going through personal files. This is, unfortunately, a Prime A teaching opportunity for the world-class journalism school at Northwest. I don’t expect any of these students, the professors, nor the school to wither at this obvious attempt at intimidation. Why not go after the school and not the students? Easier to scare students than intimidate an Ivy League school? Goddamn Texas. I know other states and jurisdictions engage in this kind of crap, but from my decade in Texas, it seems that godforsaken state is particularly stubborn that they will not overturn or re-open any conviction for any reason. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/44 "2009-10-26T21:20:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This facile analysis does a grave disservice to the truth. > > Rebutting your points in no particular order: > > It’s true that a subpoena is a not “Wrath of God” legal maneuvering. No one said it was. This is an example of a strawman argument: you have defeated a point that no one was advancing. > > It’s not free to challenge a subpoena. Someone has to bear the cost of research and the court appearance if you wish to quash the subpoena, because you cannot simply ignore it. > > The chief complaint in the OP is not the difficulty associated with quashing to subpoena. It’s the very fact that the prosecutors are spending time issuing such a subpoena in the first place – that their investigative focus is on the students, not on the evidence. Investigating the students suggests that their theory of defense will not be focused on the weaknesses, if any, in the evidence, but an attack on the methods and motives of the evidence gatherers. > > Yes, the students are likely to be advocates, not neutral seekers of the truth. So what? Dan Rather was not a neutral seeker of the truth when he published the forged Bush documents; Sean Hannity is not a neutral seeker of the truth when he… um… breathes. But they are both clearly journalists. > > And it IS prosecutorial misconduct if the prosecutors abandon one prong of their dual duty to be both advocates for their case and advocates for justice. And by choosing to investigate the students and not the underlying evidence of the crime in question, it’s a plausible inference that they have done just that. What you said. If there is a question about the evidence/information, if there is a question about the conviction that was handed down, then that is the thing to focus on. If what these students find isn’t good enough to stand scrutiny, then it can be rejected. I wonder, how many people were erroneously convicted or acquitted, simply because there was some unknown ummm thing … not a bad trial, not a bunch of bad people trying to get off or hang someone, not some “gotta win at all costs”, just one thing, one detail that nobody knew about at the time of the trial. If it is something that is known now, then it should be looked at in the name of justice. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/45 "2009-10-26T21:22:18Z")
> [@niblet\_head](#): > > Point is the chilling effect of going through personal files. This is, unfortunately, a Prime A teaching opportunity for the world-class journalism school at Northwest. I don’t expect any of these students, the professors, nor the school to wither at this obvious attempt at intimidation. > > Why not go after the school and not the students? Easier to scare students than intimidate an Ivy League school? > > Goddamn Texas. I know other states and jurisdictions engage in this kind of crap, but from my decade in Texas, it seems that godforsaken state is particularly stubborn that they will not overturn or re-open any conviction for any reason. Uh… A) It’s in Illinois B) Northwestern is by no means Ivy League C) The chilling effect can’t be that bad, given that they are up in arms about it and even you are admitting that they aren’t feeling particularly chilled. ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/46 "2009-10-26T21:23:55Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Because documentary evidence needs to have a foundation, someone to say “This is true, this is how we got it, etc”. They also talked to the witnesses who changed their story. Imagine a different matter where Vinnie Victim said “I talked to Tony Legbreaker, and then I remembered I was actually at the Ice Capades that night.” There is no question that the court might have some questions for Tony. The IP students are sources of credibility for some of the other witnesses. Except, that I don’t see in the article what kind of evidence is being presented. If they are merely digging up witnesses, then there is no issue regarding foundation. I’ve also seen nothing in the article cited to indicate anything resembling witness intimidation or even witness tampering. How are the IP students being used to bolster the witnesses credibility? ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_the_Impaler)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/47 "2009-10-26T21:34:40Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Uh… > > A) It’s in Illinois No shit. Really? ETA: FUCK ME. I’m thinking Bexar County for some dumb reason. Ok, nevermind. > [@ivn1188](#): > > B) Northwestern is by no means Ivy League Ok, that I’ll give you. > [@ivn1188](#): > > C) The chilling effect can’t be that bad, given that they are up in arms about it and even you are admitting that they aren’t feeling particularly chilled. I’m talking about the prosecutor’s point. It doesn’t matter that the students are likely willing to tell Cook County to step off. The point is that Cook County thinks this conduct is ok. That should disturb you. God help you if you are ever wrongfully convicted in Texas. Sigh, Illinois. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/48 "2009-10-26T21:42:24Z")
> [@Caffeine.addict](#): > > Except, that I don’t see in the article what kind of evidence is being presented. If they are merely digging up witnesses, then there is no issue regarding foundation. > > I’ve also seen nothing in the article cited to indicate anything resembling witness intimidation or even witness tampering. How are the IP students being used to bolster the witnesses credibility? Look, the school, after like 3 years and 9 investigative teams, _concluded_ that the guy was innocent. It’s not just a matter of “Oh look, this witness changed his mind”, or “we found DNA evidence”. It’s an investigation into a crime and the IP came to a different conclusion, 31 years later, than the criminal justice system and 12 jury members did at the time of the crime. No one, not even the state, is claiming there was intimidation or tampering. My analogy was used to illustrate why someone who wasn’t a “witness” in the sense that they saw the crime might be called. Expert witnesses, police, accountants, all of whom are people who had nothing to do with the crime itself are witnesses. The state _or_ the defense might have a valid and perfectly normal reason for calling any of the IP people. The state wants to look at their information and make sure (ALTHOUGH AS I SAID, THEY ARE PROBABLY BEING A LITTLE DUMB ABOUT IT) that the group was up front and that they aren’t hiding possible incriminating evidence. The university is claiming, through it’s _own_, **state-employed** , lawyers, that the IP’s work is protected under the journalist privilege. The grades issue seems tacked on and not really a main focus of the state’s subpoena, although certain people have lept to all sorts of conclusions about how the state is tromping jackboots all over the students, or that the state is _clearly_ (which is bullshit) abusing its authority or how the state is ignoring all the evidence and focusing all or even a large portion of their attention on the project itself. All of these are unsupported conclusions, knee-jerk reactions to a single article that contains a total of 2 quotes from the state, neither of which seem that aggressive or threatening. Sure, people are welcome to their opinions that this is one thing or another, but by claiming it’s uncontrovertable that this is: a) some sort of horrible authoritarian punishment, or b) clearly egregious behavior by the state, those people are overreacting and are _clearly_ interested in nothing more than being outraged, justifiably or not. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/49 "2009-10-26T21:51:41Z")
> [@niblet\_head](#): > > .God help you if you are ever wrongfully convicted in Texas… Not a chance. In Texas, if you are convicted, there is no God and He hates you. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_the_Impaler)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/50 "2009-10-26T21:55:51Z")
I thought it was that conviction is _proof_ of God and He hates you. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/51 "2009-10-26T22:31:49Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Expert witnesses, police, accountants, all of whom are people who had nothing to do with the crime itself are witnesses. The state _or_ the defense might have a valid and perfectly normal reason for calling any of the IP people. I fail to see how the second sentence follows from the first. Anything the IP people elicited from actual witnesses could not be used in court if stated by the IP because of hearsay rules. Thirty years after the fact, there is no way for a bunch of college journalism students to magically become witnesses. All they can do is uncover or reveal evidence not available at the original trial. The actual witnesses themselves would have to testify. This is simply an intimidation tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/52 "2009-10-27T01:15:59Z")
[QUOTE=ivn1188] Look, the school, after like 3 years and 9 investigative teams, _concluded_ that the guy was innocent. It’s not just a matter of “Oh look, this witness changed his mind”, or “we found DNA evidence”. It’s an investigation into a crime and the IP came to a different conclusion, 31 years later, than the criminal justice system and 12 jury members did at the time of the crime. No one, not even the state, is claiming there was intimidation or tampering. My analogy was used to illustrate why someone who wasn’t a “witness” in the sense that they saw the crime might be called. Expert witnesses, police, accountants, all of whom are people who had nothing to do with the crime itself are witnesses. The state _or_ the defense might have a valid and perfectly normal reason for calling any of the IP people. /QUOTE] Expert witnesses have to be qualified according to the standard for expert witnesses. They will be testifying as to their specialty and as to evidence examined to arrive at their expert opinion. Police will be testifying as to their observations of the crime scene and to admit any evidence found. Accountants will be qualified as expert witnesses. In this case, are you telling me that the defense intends to qualify the students as expert witnesses? Are the students going to be testifying as to their observations of the crime scene? Unless they are going to be testifying as to hearsay that falls under one of the exceptions, I don’t think it is likely that they will be called to the stand. Since I am not very familiar with this project, what role do they play in the defense? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/53 "2009-10-27T02:14:58Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > No, it’s not free. But it’s not terribly expensive, either. I am sure there are plenty of attorneys who would do it _pro bono_ (have you put in your time this year?). And I already said it was a ham-handed approach. There is still a cost with pro bono – the twelve hours that’s spent on this motion to quash comes out of a limited pro bono pool of hours, and it means that someone doesn’t get represented at a TPR hearing or an eviction proceeding because their pro bono time was spent here instead. > [@](#): > > But it seems clear to me that the state’s attorney is not ignoring the other aspects of the investigation, although that, being less controversial, is not the focus of the article in question. Additionally, a subpoena is really not much of a “focus” nor is it a serious time sink. I don’t agree that it’s not a time sink – how long will it take to research and brief the First Amendment issues being tossed around here? And even if the state’s attorney is investigating the actual evidence, he, too, has a resource issue – he has chosen to have his staff spend the time to draft and deliver the subpoena – minimal time, I grant – and to respond to the motion to quash, which will NOT be minimal time if there are arguments of constitutional dimension being made. And even assuming, unrealistically in the extreme, that he has unlimited resources, there’s still the slight matter that the requested information is simply not relevant. That’s the biggest sticking point of all: of what relevance is the information sought? > [@](#): > > You, without being familiar with the case or the evidence, are not really in a position to say that the state is abandoning its duty to justice; perhaps, upon review of the case file, they feel that the defendant is absolutely guilty of cold-blooded murder, and that their duty is to make sure the conviction stands so that the people who were victimized by the murder have justice. That’s fine. They cannot, however, legitimately exercise that duty by attack the students who developed the evidence in question. So even if they have a good-faith belief, based on near-unimpeachable evidence, that the right man was convicted, that still does not make their fidhing expedition into the classroom practices remotely relevant. > [@](#): > > But bloggers are generally not journalists in the legal sense. I’m not a journalist. You’re not a journalist. Rather and Hannity were/are producing news shows. The IP is not. It’s certainly not clear cut in this case, though, so what I was pointing out is that the outrage associated with questioning the IP’s status as journalists is misplaced. My outrage is not based on the merits of the inquiry – it’s based on the _relevance_ of the inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/54 "2009-10-27T05:06:47Z")
ivn1188, I disagree. If your opposing counsel manages to get good witness statements, you do not attack opposing counsel by subpoena to their law school records and personnel records. No judge would allow it. It is a non-starter. You may only attempt to get records that might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. There is no reasonable way to get the records of the advocates or their assistants into evidence. It looks stupid and cheap and a gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Attacking the character of the witnesses themselves would be another matter: still touchy, but within the realm of things to investigate for the case. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172/55 "2009-10-27T15:08:14Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > ivn1188, I disagree. If your opposing counsel manages to get good witness statements, you do not attack opposing counsel by subpoena to their law school records and personnel records. No judge would allow it. It is a non-starter. You may only attempt to get records that might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. There is no reasonable way to get the records of the advocates or their assistants into evidence. It looks stupid and cheap and a gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Attacking the character of the witnesses themselves would be another matter: still touchy, but within the realm of things to investigate for the case. What bothers me is this… The prosecutors have enough time to file motions and subpoenas, they have time to go checking the school records of the students, but then (the resources thing) apparently they do not have time to look at, and then accept or reject the things these students are saying? Bull shit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/innocent-people-may-have-been-convicted-so-lets-investigate/515172.md?page=2)