Hmm, that’s a bit strong. Saying that “There is no good evidence that any inncocent person has been executed*” appears to be 100% true. But it would be hard to be 100% sure.
**
Gangster Octopus** I think my post above answers your question.
The problem here is that there’s no method of legally declaring a dead person innocent. Any claims filed in court to try to prove an executed person innocent would be dismissed as moot.
Look, I hate Bush as much as you do, but let’s not hijack this thread into another Bush Bashing opportunity. He’s obviously 100% wrong, but there are a LOT of people who think that way, so please don’t derail the focus of this thread into yet another multi-page argument about Bush and his policies. Stick to the subject – prosecutors who are more hell-bent on convictions than actual justice.
This story reminds me of one I recently saw portrayed on Erin Brockovich’s show, Final Justice, about a woman who spent 19 years fighting to prove her brother’s innocence on a rape conviction, going so far as to get a law degree (having to first get her high school GED, then get an undergrad degree), so she could represent her brother pro bono. With DNA evidence she was finally able to secure his release when it was proven he hadn’t committed the crime. The utter tragedy is, he was killed in an accident (they didn’t say what kind of accident) 6 months after his release. So sad.
I think every prisoner should have an automatic legal right to DNA testing if it becomes available after their conviction. It should just be the default procedure in our legal system, just as current death row convicts get an automatic appeal.
DNA testing is not the end all, be all of evidence. There are labs that are bad about performing the tests. I (hazily) recall a scandal in Oklahoma where the state crime lab was basically rubberstamping hair samples to what ever the prosecutors told them.
“Here is a hair we found at the crime scene, and here is a hair from the suspect.”
“Match! Next case.”
This faith in DNA testing is a bit too strong for my tastes.
An opinion I’ve expressed many times.
Well, as far as i know, EddyTeddyFreddy is correct, and the answer to your question is “no.” Maybe Bricker can provide more information about exactly what, if anything, the lawyer is required to do if his or her client admits guilt to the lawyer.
My understanding (admittedly based mainly on TV law shows) is that the lawyer is not allowed to place a client on the stand knowing that the client will lie. So, if you tell your lawyer you did it, it’s likely that the lawyer will not permit you to take the stand in your own defence. There may well be other precautions that a lawyer with a client who admits doing it has to take.
This whole thing might seem morally blurry to some, but in terms of legal ethics it’s fairly unproblematic. The rules about lawyer-client confidentiality are in place to encourage lawyer-client communication, which is a key aspect of the legal system.
I have read some arguments by legal scholars recently arguing that there are problems with the confidentiality rules, loopholes that have worked against the interests of justice. There was an article in a recent Harper’s or Atlantic Monthly (can’t remember which; i subscribe to both), in which a law professor argued that many companies, instead of hiring accountants or administrators, now hire lawyers for the same jobs, because a lawyer can legally refuse to reveal his or her client’s malfeasances, whereas an accountant can’t hide behind the shield of confidentiality.
The argument was more complicated than that, but the general gist was that corporations are avoiding responsibility for their criminal actions by hiding behind lawyers who cannot be compelled to testify against them. I’ll try and find the article.
But this is a different issue. The fact that some labs simply rubberstamp hair samples, or conduct their DNA testing in an incompetent or fraudulent manner, does not negate the reliability of a properly-conducted DNA test. The bad labs should be shut down, but we shouldn’t dismiss the important information that DNA testing can provide.
But isn’t this, in many ways, a meaningless distinction?
I mean, anyone who has been found guilty of a crime has, by definition, been found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” How long, exactly, do we wait to determine whether there might, in fact, be some doubt? The history of these things, as linked numerous times in this thread, shows that while these cases may reach an appropriate level of legal certainty at the trial stage, we can never really be 100 percent sure of someone’s guilt. And that’s one reason why i’m against the death penalty. Period.
I wonder what the article specifically said. After the Enron scandal, the Sarbanes-Oxley act was passed in 2002, which partially applied to lawyers. It states that a lawyer’s obligation is to the corporation in which he or she works, not any individual within that corporation. So when malfeasances of any kind happen, the wrongdoer cannot hide behind the shield of confidentiality. The lawyer has a larger duty to his wellbeing of his client, the company, and must report the problem.
IANAL-- All I can give you is my best guesses based on what I know about the criminal justice system. The main reasons I can hink of are:
Re-opening the case would be pointless, since actual innocence is not necessarily grounds for overturning a conviction.
The DNA test would have to be paid for by the court system, and IIRC, they’re not cheap. If the prosecutor is convinced of the man’s guilt, it can seem to be an unnecessary expense.
Every inmate maintains his innocence.
Because a person is not guilty of one element of the crime does not mean that they’re completely innocent. Furthermore, just because DNA is not present does not mean that the crime was not committed. For example, a rapist may have used a condom. The absence of his semen would not prove him innocent.
I would be singularly unimpressed. We have quite a few inmates in the prison in which my husband works who are clearly guilty (DNA evidence, witnesses, etc.) but steadfastly refuse to admit what they did, even when offered chances at parole as an incentive. It’s not unusual in the least.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the moral desire for justice behind this concept, but I also have to look at the practical aspects. It means re-opening thousands of old cases, including those in which the inmate is clearly guilty (because if you do it for one, you have to do it for everyone.) Believe it or not, inmates are often extremely hostile towards the system, and will file a suit just because they can.
The prosecutors I know don’t look at their jobs as a numbers game. They don’t get bonuses based on how many convictions they get-- all they want to do is put dangerous people beind bars. They can be fooled by the evidence just as a jury can be.
Remember that prosecutors see the absolute worst of humanity on a daily basis. They see indescribable acts of human evil, and it often affects them emotionally. When faced with someone who seems to be guilty of a heinous crime, they sometimes get very passionate about trying to ensure that this person can never do it again.
You’ve got to understand that once you’re found guilty by a jury, you ARE legally guilty. It’s not the job of the court system to try to go back and re-try every case to try to prove that you’re not. As unfair as it sounds, remember that actual innocence is NOT valid reason for overturning a guilty verdict. There must be some error with the trial. So, in many cases, it’s almost pointless.
The Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial. Choking the system would mean denying someone their civil rights-- which I do not think is ridiculous. The integrity of the system depends on following it to the letter for everyone. There is no room for emotion or exceptions based on extreme circumstances.
Because that’s the way the system works. It may seem easier just to say “yes” to these requests, but that’s not the way things work. There is a process which must be followed.
It’s not “just because.” Whether or not the man is actually innocent is completely immaterial as far as the court system is concerned. He was found guilty, thus, for all intents and purposes, he IS guilty. There must be an actual error with the trial for a conviction to be overturned.
It is the prosecutor’s job to oppose a new trial motion, regardless of his personal feelings on the matter. He can’t just decide based on his emotions or personal judgement not to do his job. There is no room in the criminal justice system for “feelings”. You do your job according to the rules and that’s it. Your opinion has no place in the system.
Yes, it is horrible-- I agree. But that’s our system. Remember, there is a big downside towards granting personal discretion about which cases to persue to prosecutors.
It’s not. It’s his job to oppose re-opening an already closed case, especially for such an intangible reason. Like it or not, once a conviction has been handed down, the actual innocence of the convicted is relatively immaterial.
Their hands are tied by the system. They gotta do what they gotta do, whether or not they like it.
Yep, and there are crooked cops, too. And there are mean prison guards who get off on power over helpless people. And there are cruel judges. And there are prejudiced juries. There are evil people everywhere. But just because SOME are crooked, does that mean we should denounce them all or change the system?
Prosecutors are human with the same fallibilites as the rest of us. Luckily, the system manages to mostly police itself. There are ways of dealing with the crooked.
Well, as I said, my state is now testing all felons, so the point is moot. However, when there is no compelling legal reason to do so, it is an unecessary expense. The lab gets swamped with samples, has to hire more staff, has to fight lawsuits from those who claim they were framed by lab officials, and has a backlog of current cases to test on top of all of that.
What the DA wants is utterly irrelevant. He or she is bound by the system. He/she cannot act outside of the rules no matter how firmly they believe that its right or wrong. They must do their jobs even if it seems unfair.
This is obviously not so. The people being released because they were exonerated by DNA are not being released due to an error in their trial, they are being released because they are innocent.
What the FUCK?
This is a bullshit excuse. Expense is no excuse to deny justice and a DNA test is much cheaper than extended incarceration.
Who gives a fuck what the prosecutor is “convinced” of? The prosecutor is not the finder of fact, nor is it his place to decide what kind of evidence an accused person is allowed to offer in his defense. The prosecutor’s opinion has no relevance, either morally or legally.
What the FUCK?
That is a disgusting point of view, thankfully the system does not actually adhere to such a socipathic standard.
I’m calling fucking bullshit on this. Show me a cite that says prosecutors are legally bound to oppose convictions after actual innocence is proven.
I hope you know that all your posting in this thread just comes off as a bunch of mean-spirited, cold, self-justifying, pseudo-legalistic excuse-making.
But you’ve already made the case that prosecutors are, in fact, interested in having the correct person behind bars. If these prosecutors of whom you speak find out that someone is actually innocent, doesn’t it behoove them to help the person, not only out of a sense of justice for that person, but so that the case can be reopened and the real perpetrator brought to justice? And if they aren’t interested in doing this, can’t we reasonably infer that they’re more interested in winning than in convicting the right person?
Well, i’ve already pointed out a post that says that DNA testing can be had for $500. If you have a higher figure, i’d be happy to hear it. You also fail to consider that appealing against the test might actually cost more than allowing the test. And what if the defense offers to pay for the test, as has happened in some cases?
Really? I’m no expert on the prison population, but i’ve seen interviews on television with prisoners and former prisoners who admit that they committed the crime of which they were accused. Hell, when i was kid i spent every Saturday for two and a half years visiting my stepfather in prison. He was there for growing marijuana, and was perfectly candid in admitting that he had done the crime, had been caught, and was serving his time.
But we’re not talking here about situations where DNA is absent. We’re talking about situations where it is present (in the form of blood, semen, hair, skin, whatever), where the presence of such material was used in helping to convict the person, but where the DNA in that material has not been tested against the person convicted of the crime.
If a person is convicted of rape, the presence of another man’s semen is pretty strong evidence that he is not the person, especially if the presence of that semen had been used (before DNA testing) as part of the evidence against him at his trial, and if the prosecution’s theory of the crime only ever involved one perpetrator.
I see. So you’re willing to accept that the DNA evidence against these people is a key factor in determining their guilt, yet you would deny to other prisoners a simple DNA test that might prove their innocence.
What do you mean “clearly.” As you’ve already stated, anyone convicted of a crime is, by definition, guilty. Yet there have been many prisoners in the United States exonerated based on DNA tests.
And no, you don’t have to do it for everyone. Firstly, there are many cases where there is no DNA evidence available to test. Second, in some cases the presence of absense of a person’s DNA is not, as you have already pointed out, relevant to the issue at hand. For example, in a rape case, if the woman accuses a man of rape, and the man admits to having sex but says that it was consensual, the presence or absence of semen is not relevant to establishing his guilt or innocence.
By contrast, if a woman accuses a man of rape, and they collect semen during the medical examination, and that semen does not belong to the accused, then that’s pretty strong evidence that it wasn’t him. Especially if the victim has stated that she did not have sex with any other men that day.
Well, even if the prosecutors you know did look at their job as a numbers game, i wouldn’t expect them to come out and actually tell you about it. “Hey, Lissa, i convicted this bastard today. I’m not really sure if he did it or not, but it made me look good in front of the boss.” More likely, overzealous prosecutors actually convince themselves that they are doing their jobs properly, even if they’re not.
Also, it’s not necessary to pay bonuses based on convictions in order for prosecutors to feel the need to get their numbers up. Things like promotions, and even election/nomination to positions like District Attorney or Attorney General are often determined, at least partly, by a prosecutor’s conviction rate.
So, are you still denying that they do the wrong thing? Or are you now just trying to justify it based on the awfulness of their job?
Well, i’m still willing to be convinced, but if you’re going to assert that actual innocence—as established by exculpatory evidence such as a DNA test that was not available at the time of the original trial—is not sufficient grounds for overturning a verdict, then i’d like some support for your assertion.
At the very least, it should be grounds for revisiting the case. But many of the prosecutors in cases like this don’t even want the question to be raised. They wold prefer to live in ignorance, and would apparently prefer that possibly-exculpatory evidence not even see the light of day lest their convictions be overturned. That, IMO, is unconscionable.
Well, if the system can’t cope, we need to fix the system, not shrug our shoulders and condemn innocent people to remain in prison. What about the civil rights of people who have been released after serving years for crimes they didn’t commit? I guess they don’t matter.
I’d like some evidence for this assertion too. As i’ve already said, i’m no expert on the appeals process, but you’ve also admitted that you’re not a lawyer, so you’ll forgive me if i don’t take your assertions about judicial procedure as gospel.
It’s not a matter of emotion or opinion, at least not in the general sense in which you are using the term. It is a matter of judgment—judgment about whether the probitive value of the new evidence calls into question or even completely refutes the other evidence offered in the case. I was under the impression that the American legal system gave prosecutors a certain amount of discretion in these cases, and that they are not, in fact, obliged to pursue a case that they know to be flawed, and are not obliged to reject an appeal when new evidence comes to light if they believe the new evidence is relevant and exculpatory.
If i’m wrong about this, i’m happy to be corrected, but again i’ll need something more than just your assertion.
Lissa:
You’re off base here.
A guilty verdict does not make actual innocence irrelevant. It does change the burden of proof. “Innocent until proven guilty” means that the prosecutor has an uphill battle to porve your guilt. Once the state has met that burden, it falls to the defendant to prove his innocence in a future proceeding. It’s not impossible, by any means. It’s simply that the burden is now on the other side.
Convictions may be attacked, as you suggest, by pointing to errors in the trial. They may also be attacked collaterally, by pointing to new evidence that was not adduced at trial.
Different states have VERY different rules on this issue. In general, I think it’s fair to say that a convict seeking to vacate his conviction or gain a new trial must show that (a) there is new evidence; (b) that this evidence was unknown to him during the trial; © that it was unavailable to him at trial through exercise of due diligence; and (d) that this evidence, if heard at trial, had a substantial likelihood of producing a different verdict.
I finally found it among my stack of poorly-organized magazines. Even better, a search reveals that the article is available online, and you can read it here.
The author, William H. Simon, is Arthur Levitt Professor of Law at Columbia University. Here are some relevant paragraphs from the article, although i urge you to read the whole thing:
The next section of the article deals with the question of confidentiality versus “public and third-party interests.” He argues that the “net effect of confidentiality…is probably to reduce compliance with the law,” and claims that the obsession with confidentiality often acts against the interests of society and sometimes even against the interests of the client it is meant to protect.
His final paragraphs deal with a VA Hospital in Lexington, KY, which has adopted an open policy regarding hospital errors and malpriactice suits. It discloses material that most other hospitals would keep private, on the assumption that “malpractice claims are fueled less by financial motives than by anger and distrust.” As a result:
As someone who’s not a legal scholar, i can’t claim expertise in any of this stuff, and there may be strong and convincing arguments against Simon’s position. But i found the article very interesting, and many of its arguments are, on their face, quite convincing.
See the documentary. See the prosecutor in court, on video, for yourself. Hear his words with your own ears. It absolutely is just because.
Thanks for the link, Mhendo. I’ll read through it in a little bit. I don’t wish to hijack this thread any further though.
It’s not my “point of view”. It’s the law. I’m surprised you don’t know this.
(Bolding mine)
(Bolding mine)
In Arizona v. Youngblood, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:
This paper spells it out clearly:
Perhaps, but again, the State is not compelled to help prove actual innocence after a conviction.
Quite right. He presents the evidence to a jury, who imposes the verdict. It’s not his job to try to prove himself wrong.
Prosecutors must respond to appeals filings. They must attempt to hold up a conviction they know to be valid. They cannot simply decide not to challenge based on their personal feelings. They have to do their job.
shrug Perhaps. I’m just stating facts, and yes, the justice system often does seem cold and mean-spirited, but I, for one, am grateful that emotion is not a part of the justice system.
Legally, they can’t. The convicted is still legally guilty, no matter what the evidence says. The prosecutor can’t ask the court to change its mind, nor is he likely to get a conviction of the truly guilty party once the jury learns there’s already someone who has been found guilty of it.
Once the case has ended, the prosecutor’s duty is to defend his case in the appeals court. He can’t just decide not to do so because he feels like it.
I’m not sure of the legality of allowing the defense to pay for the tests. Since it’s a state lab, I don’t know if it would be allowed. Nor could they go to a private testing lab, because the results might be questioned because it wasn’t done by the proper authorities.
Really, it’s not a matter of the cost of a single test, but the cost of thousands and thousands of tests which could be demanded if inmates were allowed to challenge in this fashion.
Sure, there are some who will openly admit their guilt, but they are in the minority. The more serious the crime, the less likely they are to admit it.
Sometimes it’s because admitting guilt might jeapordize their chances of a successful appeal. For others, it’s the fact that family and friends have rallied behind them, and the inmate is afraid of what they’ll think if they know the inmate lied to them.
For some, it’s a matter of semantics. For example, if pressed, an inmate convicted of a sex offense may admit they forced a woman to have sex, but willl vehemently deny they raped her.
Others deny their crimes because they don’t want to accept what they have done-- “Only bad people do [crime] and I’m not a bad person.” Or, they won’t call the crime by its proper name because they feel there were extenuating circumstances. “Yeah, I killed him, but it’s not murder because . . . .”
Usually, though, the semen/hair/skin is not the only piece of evidence used. Victim testimony, witnesses, and other factors often enter into it. Is the loss of one factor enough to dismiss the whole?
Again, it falls back to the fact that he was convicted and the presence of new evidence is not always enough to gain a new trial order.
Hey, it sucks. I agree fully that it’s a horrible situation, deserving of outrage and protest. But fixing it would be a matter of changing the legal system as we know it. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.
I have seen instances where the only piece of evidence was found to be faulty and a conviction was overturned.
About six months ago, an inmate in my husband’s prison was going before a judge on an appeal matter. He had been convicted of molesting his niece, and her testimony was the only real evidence presented. He’d served ten years.
At the hearing, the victim, now an adult, stood up and told the judge she had lied all of those years ago. The judge freed the man, ROR, and ordered a new trial.
Now, I haven’t heard whether or not there will actually be another trial. The DA may decline to prosecute, as is his perogative, but he’s legally entitled to try it again if he chooses.
I would not deny them any tests to prove their innocence. The legal system does. Do not take my explanation of the facts as an endorsement.
I know these guys. They’re family men who have kids and dogs. I’ve seen them decline to prosecute when technically they could but morally, they shouldn’t. (And in cases where its in their discretion, of course.) They ask for lenient sentances when they have to prosecute, but don’t feel the criminal deserves hard time. They serve the community. They’re good folks.
When they come up against an evil son of a bitch, though, it’s no holds barred. They go for the jugular, and ask for the harshest penalty they can get. They become outraged and infuriated at cruelty just as we do, and they’re also capable of incredible sympathy.
Well, don’t discount public pressure. When the man in the OP was being tried, I’m sure the public was screaming for his blood. Pity the prosecutor who stood up and said he didn’t feel the man was guilty. He’d be run out of town on a rail.
Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Doubly damned if they’re not omnipotent, and they, like the jury, make a mistake. Why not blame the jury? Is it easier to blame one man than twelve?
That’s just it-- I don’t think they do the wrong thing . . . at least not intentionally. Yes, there are some nasty ones out there, and they should be removed, but a man just doing his job should not be held accountable for following the process. We would string him up if he didn’t obey the law to every jot and tittle, and then we want to string him up because he did.
The prosecutor has the duty to defend his case. A brief is filed, he must reply. he’s not doing his job if his reply was “Okay, I give up.” No matter how unfair it seems, procedure must be followed.
It does matter. It matters a lot. But their civil rights were not violated. They recieved a fair trial, and due process. The state fulfilled its obligations to that end.
The system does give them some discretion, but the article does not say if the man in the OP was convicted solely on the presence of the semen. He also had a prior rape charge. Again, prosecutors are human. Even though the man was found not guilty, I’m sure that was a red flag for them. (After all, not everyone found “not guilty” is actually innocent just like everyone convicted is not actually guilty.) He may honestly have felt that the case had merits other than the semen.
Bollocks. Prosecutors, like anyone else, have finite time and energy, and therefore necessarily have discretion as to which battles to fight and which to concede.
I notice, Lissa, that you apparently chose not to respond to Bricker, the one person in the conversation who is actually a lawyer.
read the rest of the fucking cite:
So this case is not talking about unequivocal proof of actual innocence but merely new evidence which a jury might have weighed as exculpatory.
This one just seems to be about whether a specific confession was introduced unconstitutionally at trial. It has fuck all to do with new proof of actual innocence.
Once again, this is completely off topic. It’s just about whether an error was committed at trial, not about whether proof of actual innocence is sufficient to overturn a conviction
This one won’t open for me but I’m confident you didn’t understand it any better than you understood your other cites. We are not talking about trial errors but about whether new proof of actual innocence can overturn a conviction. As evidennce in my favor I point to th Innocence Project which has done just fucking that, more than 100 times. I’ll also go ahead and point to Bricker’s post, being as he actually is a lawyer, unlike either one of us
I’m sure you realize that that’s a morally vacant answer but it’s immaterial because the question is who’s asking them to help? We’re just asking them not to obstruct.
What I said was that it’s not his job to decide if the defense has any right to provide new evidence to a court. If he does happen to become aware that he WAS wrong in a conviction then it is his duty as a responsible officer of the court to correct that error It’s his duty as a fucking human being as well, but it’s obvious you don’t give a shit about the morality of this issue. Of course, if it was YOUR ass sitting wrongfully in a cell you’d have a whole new set of opinions about it.
They don’t have to OPPOSE them. They do have discretion.
In some cases we’re talking about convictions they know NOT to be valid.
Yes they can. It’s called “discretion.” Look it up.
Not really facts so much as half-informed bullshit.
Proof of actual innocence is not “emotion.”
Yes he can, if there is proof of actual innocence.
That’s his fucking problem, not the person wrongly convicted
Prosecutors can and do decide just that if unequivocal proof of actual innocence is presented to the court.
Who gives a fuck about their dogs? What does that have to do with the conversation? Guess what, some of the guys that are wrongfully convicted- the ones that some prosecutors KNOW are innocent and still fight to keep in prison (or worse, on death row) are also family men and dog owners. So are lots of the guilty ones. Who cares?
You mean they DO have discretion? How about that. You’ve just contradicted yourself.
Some are, some aren’t. Any of them who KNOWINGLY fight to keep innocent people in jail (or worse, to see them executed) are fucking scum. I don’t care if they’re your friends. I don’t care if they have a dog. They’re fucking assholes.
I’m sure many are. Others aren’t. You aren’t going to convince me that anyone with any morality or conscience will fight to uphold the conviction of a person they KNOW is innocent, especially in capital cases.
I don’t give two shits about their “public pressure.” How does that excuse anything? If they can’t take the pressure they can quit.
No prosecutor has any legal obligation to defend the conviction of a person who is later proven innocent.
You keep saying this and it’s bullshit. a prosecutor does not HAVE to oppose overturning convictions if absolute proof of innocence can be shown to the court.
How is that relevant? If it wasn’t his semen, it wasn’t him. End of argument.
And he was acquitted. That means legally he didn’t do it. How is that relevant?
Well now he knows it DIDN’T. He has no excuse.
So Lissa is Bricker correct? It does seem kinda strange that you haven’t responded to him…