[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
My sense is, and correct me if I am wrong, that many prosecutors see their job performance judged by how many people they throw in jail. If they can show a high prosecution rate all the better for them regardless if it is the right person. Finding later you got the wrong guy only hurts them so they fight tooth and nail to avoid it.
I agree 100% with you that it should be as you mention. I just do not have the sense that this is how it always works. Certainly some will be respectful of the law and justice as you are but some others are not.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, unfortunately, there are all too many prosecutors who take that approach. I even worked with some of them. But the U.S. Supreme Court, among others, has clearly held that they shouldn’t.
Wait a minute… If it becomes known that a person is innocent, when it wasn’t known at the time of his trial, doesn’t that imply that some new evidence has come up? And isn’t new evidence always a valid grounds for appeal, regardless of time limits and such?
[QUOTE=Chronos]
Wait a minute… If it becomes known that a person is innocent, when it wasn’t known at the time of his trial, doesn’t that imply that some new evidence has come up? And isn’t new evidence always a valid grounds for appeal, regardless of time limits and such?
[/QUOTE]
I would hope so. (I thought so, too. I find some of the attributed quotes above… disappointing to say the least.)
I am trying to think of a way to rationalise why someone may say such things…
Isn’t there a legal “philosophy” regarding the jury-based system?
The philosophy, as near as I can explain it, would be that any given defendant has had their “day in court”. If 12 jurors can, through the weight of the evidence presented at trial, really and truly feel that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, don’t their opinions carry weight? If a jury finds “guilty”, shouldn’t that verdict only be overturned with overwhelming evidence/arguments?
I am gonna guess that some of those prosecuters feel that going over old ground that has already covered (again and again) to be fruitless and frustrating, especially after witnesses begin to forget things (or just plain become unavailable), evidence is lost, tainted, or destroyed, etc., and with the defence team polishing it’s defence, better able to raise the spectre of doubt better and better. They don’t wish to have the court system to be played like a lottery, where the defendent/convict just keeps trying until they win a lucky draw on the jury pool (and get a bunch of easilly confused broccoli stalks for jurists).
[QUOTE=Chronos]
Wait a minute… If it becomes known that a person is innocent, when it wasn’t known at the time of his trial, doesn’t that imply that some new evidence has come up? And isn’t new evidence always a valid grounds for appeal, regardless of time limits and such?
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Oy. You’d think that, but it turns out to be a bit tougher. You’ve got to define “known.” If it was something that could have been discovered back when, the defendant will need an explanation for why it wasn’t:
And new evidence isn’t automatic grounds for appeal, at least in the appeal of right category. You only get one “appeal” from the judgment (and maybe one from that appeal) as a matter of right.
Once the appeals are over, you’re talking about collater attacks on judgments and post-judgment motions for new trial. Additional excuses are required for each time the evidence wasn’t brought to a court’s attention. *See, e.g., * Schlup:
And see, generally, cases like Dedge’s case, where the prosecutor first argued he couldn’t use DNA evidence to prove his innocence, even though DNA wasn’t available when he was first tried, then that the court shouldn’t consider the DNA, then as long as DNA was tested from the pubic hairs that the prosecution had claimed made their case at the original trial, they should test and review DNA from semen, too.
[QUOTE=Gfactor]
to succeed on a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must show that: the evidence was discovered after the trial; defendant and his counsel exercised diligence to discover all possible evidence favorable to the defendant before and during trial; the newly discovered evidence is material to the issues involved and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and it would probably bring about an acquittal verdict if presented at another trial.
[/quote]
I was wondering about this.
Earlier we distinguished between Schlup and Herrera where it was pointed out Herrera didn’t argue a mistake was made at trial but only that he was innocent (bad luck for him).
However isn’t their an implication that your attorney did screw up (or at least not exercise due diligence) if some obvious piece of evidence was overlooked at trial that could acquit you?
Seems to me you have a few choices:
Prosecutor hid evidence (should be a new trial)
Defense did not uncover evidence they could have (new trial…your attorney sucked)
New science allows old evidence to be re-examined in a way not possible before (new trial)
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
However isn’t their an implication that your attorney did screw up (or at least not exercise due diligence) if some obvious piece of evidence was overlooked at trial that could acquit you?
[/QUOTE]
If by implication, you mean presumption, no way. Is it likely that a lot of evidence gets missed because the defense lawyer didn’t look in the right place for it? Sure. It’s also possible that the police just didn’t bother to do the forensics. For example, in Murder on a Sunday Morning, http://www.docurama.com/productdetail.html?productid=NV-NVG-5603-NVG-9540The police recovered a purse, but didn’t check it for prints because the defendant had already “confessed” after he was beaten. When he was acquitted the cops still considered him the guy who did it and didn’t investigate the crime. Later, the defense attorney learned that a known felon had committed the murder. Once they were handed a confessed killer, police checked the purse and found his fingerprint.
[QUOTE=Gfactor]
States are now passing laws just to give defendants *access * to DNA evidence. New technology doesn’t automatically mean new trial.
[/QUOTE]
This one bothers me a lot.
Seems to me a person convicted of a crime should have access to the evidence whenever they wish (whatever evidence the State keeps…I know that can vary).
I am not saying they should ship it to the prisoner’s cell or let his 12 year old sister have at it to play with her home chemistry set. I presume there are accredited labs/people to whom the state deems ok to give these things to.
If it is a question of money (who pays for it) I have zero issue with the prisoner bearing all the costs. The trial is done…if you want to revisit it then it is on your own dime. Even the state should be allowed some reasonable charge to cover its costs in dealing with the paperwork and whatnot.
But in the end it should be accessible. And while new technology may not automatically mean a new trial I think it should be considered new evidence that was, quite literally, unavailable in the original trial and the prisoner’s chances at a new trial should be viewed in that light.
[QUOTE=Gfactor]
States are now passing laws just to give defendants access to DNA evidence.
[/QUOTE]
I need to clarify this. Eight states don’t currently have laws requiring access to DNA testing. Many others do, but some offer better rights than others.