# This prosecutor should spend 19 years behind bars **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 2, 2005, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290 "2005-08-02T12:52:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/21 "2005-08-02T15:43:31Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I can certainly understand why prosecutors oppose DNA testing. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose; they already have a conviction under their belt, and DNA testing can only make them look bad. If there was ever proof that prosecutors care only about their conviction rate, and nothing about justice, this is it. Now, come on . . . I know a lot of prosecutors through my husband’s work, and they’re people, too. They’re not heartless . . . . those whom I know would be sickened if they thought they’d put an innocent man behind bars, and horrified if the real guilty party went free. They take their responsibilities to the citizens of the state very seriously. They don’t have giant, evil conspiracies to incarcerate innocent people. They live in the same cities as we do-- they don’t want the real criminasl roaming the streets with their kids. Prosecutors aren’t always judged by how many convictions they get (maybe in “big market” areas like New York) but how efficiently they do their jobs. DAs don’t want the embarassment and bad PR of a renegade prosecutor just trying to stuff the prisons. After all, their superiors read the papers, too, and they better have a damn good explanation if the shit hits the fan. Nor does having a conviction overturned necessarily make the prosecutor “look bad” in the eyes of those who understand the system. After all, he simply did his job. He presented the case he had, not our of personal malice, but out of professional duty. If new evidence comes to light showing that the _jury’s_ decision to send the man to prison was erroneous, it’s a tradgedy, but no one _blames_ the prosecurot. After all, he’s not omnipotent. He went off the information he had at the time. Professional malfeasance is another story. If they can prove that a prosecutor is guilty of actual misconduct, such as destroying evidence, tampering with witnesses and the like, his superiors will _fry his ass._ They won’t try to cover it up, or get in on the conspiracy. These are _people_, not demons. Yeah, some of them are power-hungry assholes, but you find those kinds of folk in every walk of life, and they tend to get quietly weeded out. I reiterate that prosecutors don’t put people in prison: _juries_ do. The prosecutor presents his evidence and argument, and the jury decides whether or not to convict. What I think probably happened is that this prosecutor was so convinced by the evidence that he thought a DNA test was _unnecessary_ and thus a waste of the taxpayer’s money and the court’s time. And many times it is. Inmates often file lawsuits just to slow down the legal process. (I personally know of several cases in which the inmate successfully fought a lengthy battle to get DNA tests, and the results proved that the inmate was, indeed, guilty.) I would bet my first-born child there was no personal vendetta that the prosecutor had against this inmate. Likely, he didn’t even remember who the guy was, and had to go back and read all the case files. When a suit is filed, the prosecutor has to reply, and the reply is usually an automatic “no.” Not because the prosecutor is mean, but because that’s his _job._ It’s an adversarial system, folks. We don’t reopen every case when an inmate demands it. If every single inmate demanded DNA testing in the appeals process, the justice system would be glutted with cases. On a related note, in my state, we have recently begun compulsory DNA testing of anyone convicted of a felony. The inmates are fighting it _vehemently_. Lawsuits abound. The reason they are so opposed? The DNA goes into a datatbase and is matched with evidence from unsolved crimes. Dozens and dozens of convictions have resulted. I have not heard yet of a single discovery of a wrongful conviction resulting from it. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/22 "2005-08-02T16:00:58Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > If every single inmate demanded DNA testing in the appeals process, the justice system would be glutted with cases. Until we get caught up, we’re just going to have to deal with the glut. > [@](#): > > On a related note, in my state, we have recently begun compulsory DNA testing of anyone convicted of a felony. The inmates are fighting it _vehemently_. Lawsuits abound. The reason they are so opposed? The DNA goes into a datatbase and is matched with evidence from unsolved crimes. Dozens and dozens of convictions have resulted. I have not heard yet of a single discovery of a wrongful conviction resulting from it. It cuts both ways. I’m pleased that it is convicting criminals as well as exonerating the innocent. Right now, there should be some sense of urgency and fair play about exonerating the innocent. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/23 "2005-08-02T16:06:59Z")
You know, some people wonder how a lawyer can _defend_ a rapist in court. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/24 "2005-08-02T16:13:52Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > You’re kidding me. You’re allowed to designate someone like that if they’ve even been accused? I mean, it taints it even if the guy has been convicted, but at least there’s some sort of rationale there, even a weak one. Internal police resources list arrests as well as convictions. There is some rationale for this: a not-guilty finding means that the state couldn’t prove their case, not that the accused was factually innocent. I believe the police should have access to that sort of information. Where we cross the line into madness, of course, is sharing that information with the victim, especially in the context of a photo array. Ideally, the photo array or line-up should be presented or conducted by an officer that is himself unaware of which one the suspect is. This would prevent any inadvertant clues or reactions that tent to taint victim IDs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/25 "2005-08-02T16:16:26Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > You know, some people wonder how a lawyer can _defend_ a rapist in court. Is this a serious question? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/26 "2005-08-02T16:35:21Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > Now, come on . . . I know a lot of prosecutors through my husband’s work, and they’re people, too. They’re not heartless . . . . those whom I know would be sickened if they thought they’d put an innocent man behind bars, and horrified if the real guilty party went free. They take their responsibilities to the citizens of the state very seriously. Just out of interest, then: What possible reason, in a case like that in the OP, could a prosecutor have for opposing a DNA test? What would you say if someone came to you and said, “Hey, there’s this guy who’s been in jail for 19 years, who maintains his innocence, and who has refused to say he’s guilty even though it might have got him parole on four separate occasions. Furthermore, there is now a test available that was not available at the time of his conviction, and there is evidence collected from the crime scene upon which we can conduct this test in order to prove conclusively whether or not this guy was the rapist”? > [@Lissa](#): > > They don’t have giant, evil conspiracies to incarcerate innocent people. They live in the same cities as we do-- they don’t want the real criminasl roaming the streets with their kids. Prosecutors aren’t always judged by how many convictions they get (maybe in “big market” areas like New York) but how efficiently they do their jobs. DAs don’t want the embarassment and bad PR of a renegade prosecutor just trying to stuff the prisons. After all, their superiors read the papers, too, and they better have a damn good explanation if the shit hits the fan. None of this has to involve a conspiracy. It can merely be the result of prosecutors who have the same desire to move up the career ladder as many other professionals. The difference is that prosecutors aren’t just making Powerpoint presentations or reaching sales targets, they’re responsbile for determining the future course of people’s lives. > [@Lissa](#): > > Nor does having a conviction overturned necessarily make the prosecutor “look bad” in the eyes of those who understand the system. After all, he simply did his job. He presented the case he had, not our of personal malice, but out of professional duty. If new evidence comes to light showing that the _jury’s_ decision to send the man to prison was erroneous, it’s a tradgedy, but no one _blames_ the prosecurot. After all, he’s not omnipotent. He went off the information he had at the time. If this is all true, why then the adamant opposition by some prosecutors to even conducting a simple DNA test? If they are concerned to have the right person in prison, surely such a definitive test would be in their best interests also? Why do they so frequently oppose motions for such tests, even when, on some occasions, the appellant actually offers to pay all costs associated with the test? > [@Lissa](#): > > What I think probably happened is that this prosecutor was so convinced by the evidence that he thought a DNA test was _unnecessary_ and thus a waste of the taxpayer’s money and the court’s time. And many times it is. Inmates often file lawsuits just to slow down the legal process. (I personally know of several cases in which the inmate successfully fought a lengthy battle to get DNA tests, and the results proved that the inmate was, indeed, guilty.) Which only goes to show that it’s in the prosecution’s best interests, if they really want to see justice served, to allow the tests in the first place. If the test shows the guy is innocent, a horrible wrong has been righted. And if it shows he’s guilty, the prosecution can wave it in the guy’s face and say, “Sorry, my friend, but you’re going to have to stick around.” > [@Lissa](#): > > I would bet my first-born child there was no personal vendetta that the prosecutor had against this inmate. Likely, he didn’t even remember who the guy was, and had to go back and read all the case files. No-one said otherwise. In fact, all your assertion does is demonstrate the institutional inertia that leads to bad convictions and an unwillingness to revisit them. > [@Lissa](#): > > When a suit is filed, the prosecutor has to reply, and the reply is usually an automatic “no.” Not because the prosecutor is mean, but because that’s his _job._ It’s an adversarial system, folks. We don’t reopen every case when an inmate demands it. If every single inmate demanded DNA testing in the appeals process, the justice system would be glutted with cases. There’s no necessary contradiction, in my opinion, between an adversarial system and allowing a prisoner to have a DNA test. Just because it’s an adversarial system does not mean that a prosecutor should be able to deny the defence access to possibly-exculpatory evidence. And your “glutted with cases” argument is ridiculous. Why should we deny justice just because the court system is over-worked? Also, in many cases there will be no evidence to test for DNA. And in others, DNA will not make or break the case one way or another. Furthermore, on the issue of clogging the courts and using up resources, i’m no expert on the cost to the state of the appeals process, but it strikes me that it would probably actually be cheaper and easier, in many cases, to allow the DNA testing than to actually spend the time fighting the motion for such a test. According to **Otto** ’s post in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=328277), a DNA test can be had for around $500. How does that compare to the cost to the state, in time and resources, of opposing such a test? > [@Lissa](#): > > On a related note, in my state, we have recently begun compulsory DNA testing of anyone convicted of a felony. The inmates are fighting it _vehemently_. Lawsuits abound. The reason they are so opposed? The DNA goes into a datatbase and is matched with evidence from unsolved crimes. Dozens and dozens of convictions have resulted. I have not heard yet of a single discovery of a wrongful conviction resulting from it. Nice try, but this is a completely unrelated issue. The question of whether we should allow tests on a particular piece of evidence in a particular case at the request of the defendant is a completely separate from the question of compulsory DNA sampling from all felons. > [@Zebra](#): > > You know, some people wonder how a lawyer can defend a rapist in court. Not sure exactly what you’re saying here. It’s not clear whether you agree with them or not. But the people who think that are morons. Because, by definition, the accused cannot be guilty of rape until after the trial. The trial itself is about establishing “guilty” or “not guilty,” and to suggest that “rapists” shouldn’t be defended is to suggest that they not even have the opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/27 "2005-08-02T16:43:25Z")
What I was trying to say, is that some people complain about defense lawyers, under the incorrect assumption, that the accused is always guilty. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/28 "2005-08-02T16:59:05Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > What I was trying to say, is that some people complain about defense lawyers, under the incorrect assumption, that the accused is always guilty. True enough. But i would go even further and say that, even in cases where the accused _is_ found guilty, this is no reflection upon the character of the lawyer. Hell, even if the accused actually _tells_ the lawyer he did it, the lawyer is still, AFAIK, bound to defend the accused to the best of his or her ability. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/29 "2005-08-02T16:59:58Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > What I was trying to say, is that some people complain about defense lawyers, under the incorrect assumption, that the accused is always guilty. Gotcha. Obviously, I agree. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/30 "2005-08-02T17:08:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Internal police resources list arrests as well as convictions. There is some rationale for this: a not-guilty finding means that the state couldn’t prove their case, not that the accused was factually innocent. I believe the police should have access to that sort of information. Right, I understand that, but I had always assumed that the pictures the police shared with witnesses for identification were separate from the ones in their internal files. > [@](#): > > Where we cross the line into madness, of course, is sharing that information with the victim, especially in the context of a photo array. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/31 "2005-08-02T17:12:13Z")
Anyone interested in this subject would do well to look at the documentary film _After Innocence_, currently making the festival rounds and shortly to run on Showtime. It’s about the efforts of the Innocence Project, and looks specifically at half a dozen or so cases of men freed from prison after having been exonerated of crimes they did not commit. In most instances, the state just turns the men onto the street without even an apology, let alone compensation, job retraining, or anything else. But of particular interest given the tenor of this thread will be the courtroom footage showing precisely and explicitly the prosecutorial misconduct **Lissa** insists does not happen: There’s one convicted man _who already has the DNA test proving his innocence **and who is still fighting an overzealous prosecutor who doesn’t want to lose the notch on the butt of his prosecutorial pistol.** _ It’s shocking, horrifying, and completely disgusting, and the prosecutor is completely unapologetic for his continued efforts to fuck up the life of an innocent man, “just because.” :mad: ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/32 "2005-08-02T17:18:20Z")
Thanks for the info, **Cervaise**. I’ll keep an eye out for it. Although the [website](http://www.afterinnocence.com/main_theaters.html) says that the film will be distributed to theatres nationwide in October. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/33 "2005-08-02T17:22:49Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > In addition, [Death Penalty Info](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110) documents 119 death row inmates that have been exonerated since 1973, 14 through DNA evidence. Are there any documented cases of someone being put to death and it is subsequently discovered he/she is innocent? ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/34 "2005-08-02T17:26:29Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Hell, even if the accused actually _tells_ the lawyer he did it, the lawyer is still, AFAIK, bound to defend the accused to the best of his or her ability. If you told your lawyer “Yes I killed them all” isn’t that lawyer obligated to turn that over? If not thats sort of blurry ethically or something IMHO anyway. On to this case in the OP, I am throwing any person in the legal profession that would rather have a stat then justice into a double helping of corn filled shit, with a cherry on top. As a parent of two small children myself I wince when I think about them, and what happens to them if it happened to me. Not to mention this whole guys life. I went to the park this weekend, kids love the swings and the slides, its too late for this dad to take his children to the park. (Well and enjoy the swings and slides) His family was probably blacklisted with all the neighbors as the “one with the rapist” 19 years, here is a list of things he missed being a part of most likely His children entering school School plays School sports Guiding his children Being there when his child fell down needing a hug Waking up, walking outside. Watching the fireworks Wrapping his childrens presents and watching the excitement as they are opened Spending the holidays with his family Freedom And so very much more think of your last 19 years and then take it all away because your behind bars. Those who do these convictions knowingly deserve nothing less then doing the same time, and those who try to keep justice from being served can serve the time with them. No apology can make this go away but I think I would be much less angry if the prosecutor did not fight the DNA testing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/35 "2005-08-02T17:31:47Z")
I’d like to ask **Lissa** two questions. 1. Since when is it a prosecutors’ job to decide if a DNA test is “necessary” or not? 2. What do you say about prosecutors who continue to fight against overturning convictions AFTER the DNA has already exonerated an individual and the prosecutor KNOWS FOR A FACT that the person is innocent? Personally, I can’t see any moral excuse for trying to block a test that will remove any doubt and tell us the truth about a case. If the prosecutor is right, then he’s got nothing to worry about. The test will prove it. The only reason to oppose the test is if the prosecutor is worried that it will prove innocence and they’ll lose a conviction. Prosecutors like that (especially in capital cases) are every bit as evil and sociopathic as the rapists and murderers they lock up. ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/36 "2005-08-02T17:36:19Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > Are there any documented cases of someone being put to death and it is subsequently discovered he/she is innocent? > [@](#): > > One Innocence Project client, later cleared, came within five days of being put to death. At one point he was moved to a holding cell near the death chamber and his sister was sent a form letter asking what the funeral home should do with his body.) Therefore, although thus far there are no proven cases, it seems quite likely that some of the prisoners put to death since 1977 have been innocent and that, if executions continue, some of those executed in the future will be innocent [Link](http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/30convicting.html) Upon reviewing that site for the book : Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution, and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer And some of the stats they used I would come to the same conclusion they did. Sad, very sad for such an advanced society. - This was published in 2000, there may be other information out there that verifies an innocent execution. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/37 "2005-08-02T17:49:46Z")
But wait a minute. GWB says he’s a 100% sure that no innocent people have ever been executed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/38 "2005-08-02T17:57:44Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > Now, come on . . . I know a lot of prosecutors through my husband’s work, and they’re people, too. > > What I think probably happened is that this prosecutor was so convinced by the evidence that he thought a DNA test was _unnecessary_ and thus a waste of the taxpayer’s money and the court’s time. And many times it is. Inmates often file lawsuits just to slow down the legal process. (I personally know of several cases in which the inmate successfully fought a lengthy battle to get DNA tests, and the results proved that the inmate was, indeed, guilty.) > When a suit is filed, the prosecutor has to reply, and the reply is usually an automatic “no.” Not because the prosecutor is mean, but because that’s his _job._ It’s an adversarial system, folks. . 1. Which means that _some_ of them _are_ heartless bastards who are looking for a high conviction record in order to further their policical career. 2. So- how much is the cost? Isn’t it already mostly subsumed into the overhead of a crime lab? And, in the case where it confirms the guilt- I don’t think that’s a waste of money at all. 3. But it shouldn’t be “adversarial”. The DA represents NOT the opposing side, but “the people”. If the person is innocent then the DA should want than known also. On to the death penalty and some hundred dudes convicted but later found innocent. You should know that death penalty proponents point to this as proof that 'the system works" as post conviction appeals are certainly a “part of the system”. So far- there hasn’t been one person executed (in the last few decades) that has been proved innocent afterwards. I understand that the State stops looking for evidence at that point, but quite a few heirs of executed killers have hired PI’s and continued “the fight” afterwards. This doesn’t mean I support the Death Penalty. I- in general- do not. I greatly oppose it when it’s more or less routine, such as in Texas. But when we have some of these horrid mass torture killers, especially those that prey on kids- I can understand the death penalty. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/39 "2005-08-02T18:01:34Z")
> [@LostGoals](#): > > If you told your lawyer “Yes I killed them all” isn’t that lawyer obligated to turn that over? If not thats sort of blurry ethically or something IMHO anyway. Nope. What a client tells his/her lawyer can’t be revealed by the attorney unless the client explicitly waives attorney-client privilege. The [ABA’s Model Code of Professional Responsiblity](http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/mcpr/MCPR.HTM) has an entire section devoted to this issue, the opening paragraph of which states: > [@](#): > > EC 4-1 > > Both the fiduciary relationship existing between lawyer and client and the proper functioning of the legal system require the preservation by the lawyer of confidences and secrets of one who has employed or sought to employ him.1 A client must feel free to discuss whatever he wishes with his lawyer and a lawyer must be equally free to obtain information beyond that volunteered by his client.2 A lawyer should be fully informed of all the facts of the matter he is handling in order for his client to obtain the full advantage of our legal system. It is for the lawyer in the exercise of his independent professional judgment to separate the relevant and important from the irrelevant and unimportant. The observance of the ethical obligation of a lawyer to hold inviolate the confidences and secrets of his client not only facilitates the full development of facts essential to proper representation of the client but also encourages laymen to seek early legal assistance. ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290/40 "2005-08-02T18:07:59Z")
In the modern era there have been more then one questionable execution > [@](#): > > CONVICTIONS BASED ON QUESTIONABLE EVIDENCE > Texas accounted for 23 of the 59 executions carried out in the USA in 2004. Eight people prosecuted in the Texas jurisdiction of Harris County were executed during the year, despite concern around the reliability of forensic evidence processed through the Houston Police Department (HPD) crime laboratory where serious problems had been uncovered in 2003. In October 2004 a judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said that there should be “a moratorium on all executions in cases where convictions were based on evidence from the HPD crime lab until the reliability of the evidence has been verified”. His was the only dissenting voice when the Court denied death row inmate Dominque Green’s request for a stay of execution on the basis of concern around the accuracy of the HPD’s ballistics work in his case, and the discovery of 280 boxes of mislabelled evidence that could affect thousands of criminal cases. Dominque Green was executed on 26 October. (See also Amnesty International USA: Dead wrong: The case of Nanon Williams, child offender facing execution on flawed evidence, January 2004, AI Index: AMR 51/002/2004.) [Source](http://www2.amnesty.se/hem.nsf/deathpenaltyapril2005a?OpenPage) I am for the death penalty, but it should be put on hold for as many years/decades/centuries it takes before we can convict someone without any doubt of there guilt. As it stands now to many are convicted based on race, money, political grandstanding, flimsy evidence to even start thinking of ending someone’s life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-prosecutor-should-spend-19-years-behind-bars/315290.md?page=3)