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).
You don’t think it signifies that a serving prosecutor (in another jurisdiction, admittedly) finds it disturbing?
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.
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.
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.
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?
No shit. Really? ETA: FUCK ME. I’m thinking Bexar County for some dumb reason. Ok, nevermind.
Ok, that I’ll give you.
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.
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.
Not a chance. In Texas, if you are convicted, there is no God and He hates you.
I thought it was that conviction is proof of God and He hates you.
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.
[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?
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.
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?
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.
My outrage is not based on the merits of the inquiry – it’s based on the relevance of the inquiry.
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.