How about The Innocence Project? Here in Illinois, some ungodly number of people on death row were cleared through DNA. Nine, I think. The then governor, George Ryan, emptied out death row by commuting everyone there to life imprisonment. That event changed my mind about the death penalty.
Even now, some guy in this state is in the process of being cleared of killing his daughter and her best friend after something like five years. There’s something really wrong with the criminal justice system, in my opinion.
Fraud, corruption etc are a lot more difficult to prove than your average common assualt and battery. Fraud trials especially are long drawn out anc compliacated, I might spend 3 months in one and about 3 hours in an assualt trial.
Nonetheless, prosecutors are humans and are subject to the same bias as any other human. Some more than average and these will commit the more egregious offences (e.g. Nifong) and some less. But there’s no getting around the fact that they have a powerful incentive to prosecute innocent people in high profile cases. No doubt they convince themselves that these people are guilty. (I bet even Nifong did.)
Sorry to offend you. But if you have any rationale to deny this beyond your personal sense of outrage, I’d be curious to see what that might be.
I also know a public defender who has told me that almost all of his clients are factually guilty. A public defender ends up with the worst cases, and largely petty ones at that – marijuana possession, disturbing the peace, petty theft, etc. For these kinds of crimes, even the most unethical prosecutor wouldn’t bother pushing for a conviction against someone who was factually innocent. A huge percentage of these cases are for things like failure to appear, and it’s very difficult to be charged with failure to appear unless you actually did fail to appear (although, I do know a guy who was charged with that when the judge changed the hearing date after a conference with all parties, but through a clerical error, the change didn’t get recorded).
I could use some clarification around the notion of “lesser included charge”. To which of the following scenarios would y’all consider that phrase to apply, and therefore consider the defendant to be other than “actually” innocent?
• Police officers suspect Joe Schmoe of selling marijuana. In a situation where they have suffiicient cause to search, they find Mr. Schmoe in possession of some quantity of marijuana. Changed with possession with intent to sell. Defending attorney such as Bricker believes Schmoe did at no time sell marijuana and this stash was for personal consumption. Obviously guilty of lesser charge of possession of a controlled substance.
• Police officers suspect Joe Schmoe of committing armed robbery and murder. Arrested under reasonable and appropriate circumstances, Joe Schmoe is found to be in possession of some quantity of marijuana. Charged with murder 1st, armed robbery, lower murder charges, manslaughter, possession with intent to sell, and possession of a controlled substance. And resisting arrest and jaywalking. Subsequent events make it clear that Schmoe was not present at the robbery/murder. Defending atty believes Schmoe is guilty only of possession of a controlled substance, unrelated to the major charged of which he was not at all guilty, but definitely and genuinely guilty of the pot charges.
• Police officers suspect Joe Schmoe of burglary. Arrested with sufficient good reason, Joe and his Avis rental car are searched. In the carpet of Joe’s rented car are found some marijuana seeds and a few stems, and a used pot pipe is found in the floorboards. Initially charged with burglary, breaking and entering, criminal tresspassing, and possession of a controlled substance, subsequent investigation leads to determination that crowbars and other tools were not used in burglary and nothing ties Joe to the building. Plea bargained to possession of a controlled substance. Defending atty believes Schmoe to be guilty of nothing except being in possession of ancient stems seeds and dirty pipe that probably belonged to someone else anyway, these lesser charges being included only to give officers a concrete reason for detaining the suspect while suspecting him of a crime he did not commit (burglary), and therefore falling into the “everyone is guilty of something if you look long enough for it” category.
To answer for Bricker, scenarios 2 and 3 don’t fall under “lesser included offenses”, only the first scenario does. The drug charges are separate charges, not included charges.
A lesser included offense is something like being charged with attempted murder, because you punched a guy in the head. Well, you could also be charged with aggravated assault. Assault is a lesser included offense. If you’re arrested and the cops find a baggie of pot in your pocket, that’s an offense, but it isn’t an included offense to the charge of attempted murder, it’s a completely separate offense.
I’ve done some pro bono work on the appeal of a guy here serving life without possibility of parole for a crime he simply did not commit. We just lost the state habeas case procedurally. So now it is off to the federal system.
The only possible one is that the paraphrase I lifted from the OP did not convey your original intent - that is, that it was not your words. I admit that is a distinct possibility.
If that’s not it, there is no error. Though your cheeky way of trying to make a game of it is pretty charming.
Possession of a controlled substance IS a lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell.
So there are two “top counts” in play for this trial. First degree murder and possession with intent to sell. (Four if you count the resisting and jaywalking). With both, there are lesser included offenses. So in this case, Joe is guilty of a lesser included offense of one of the charged offenses.
The meaning of “…that probably belonged to someone else anyway…” is not clear to me.
If defense attorney genuinely believes Joe had nothing to do with the paraphenalia or the contraband, then he’d be that rarest of birds - the truly innocent client. If the pipe etc. was his, then he’s guilty of the offense he’s pleading to. It’s not a lesser included offense of any other charge.
I have bolded the word “or” in your sentence. The word ‘or’ is disjunctive. It means that either option may be true to satisfy the condition.
So let’s review. A factually innocent defendant is one that either: (a) did not commit at least one of the elements in question, OR
(b) the Commonwealth cannot as a matter of law prove one of the elements.
Let’s just forget (b). You are hopelessly confused by (b), and I don’t wish to tax you unecessarily. And since we understand that “or” is disjunctive, let’s just focus on (a).
So I tell you I never had a client who did not commit at least one element of the elements in question. And I tell you that this client was acquitted. That is, the Commonwealth did not convince the fact-finder of each and every element of the charged crime.
Where is the contradiction? How do you conclude that the Commonwealth must have won?
But that sentiment seems remarkably thin-skinned for someone who happily opined that I lost each and every case I tried as an attorney. More so, when the conclusion you so smugly advanced was without any support in anything I posted. My humble effort to draw your attention to where your errors lay should have been greeted, I would think, with equally humble thanks.
