Why don't prosecutors give a shit what the truth is? (death penalty/ DNA rant)

The BBQ Pit
1

http://www.fadp.org/news/nov102.html

In 1992 a guy named Roger Keith Coleman was executed in Virginia for rape and murder. There is a frozen sample of semen from the victim which has never been subjected to modern DNA testing. Several newspapers in Virginia have requested that they be able to test the evidence, using DNA technology unavailable at the time that Coleman was executed, to determine conclusively if Coleman was guilty. The Commonwealth of Virginia is refusing to give the press any access to the evidence.

So the state is trying to argue that testing the evidence will “destroy” it.

But now they intend to BURN it without testing it.

In other words, the Commonwealth of Virginia wants to make impossible for anyone to prove a wrongful execution.

And why? Well take a look at this:

So we can’t test evidence because that might make the state LOOK BAD?

Why don’t prosecutors give a fuck what the truth is? Isn’t the whole fucking point of a trial to find out the TRUTH? Why isn’t DNA testing MANDATORY for prosecutors in all relevant cases? Innocent people are walking off death row in droves in the past few years. are we supposed to believe that every single one of them has been caught in time? That not ONE innocent person has been executed. George w Bush, as governor of texas, once declared unequivocally that it was IMPOSSIBLE for any of his own state’s gas chamber victims to have been innocent.

WTF??? Is he fucking KRESKIN? Is he GOD? How the fuck does he know? And more importantly why doesn’t he CARE?
Do prosecutors care more about their own careers and conviction records than they do about justice? Defense attorneys get consistently bashed in the media for supposedly trying to get “guilty” people off. Yet prosecutors get a free fucking ride even though they are just as prone to self-serving tactics, and cynical manipulation of the system as defense attorneys, and i would argue that the potential damage from a dishonest prosecutor is WORSE because they are committing two crimes. They are putting innocent people in prison or to death, and by doing so they are allowing the REAL guilty parties to go free.

If DNA evidence is available, then what possible legitimate excuse does the state have not to test it?

If the states are so confident of their cases, then why are they so terrified of posthumous DNA testing for executed inmates? How shaken would the public be if they found out how many innocent people have been executed?

If the behavior of Virginia is any indication they’d be pretty damn shaken.

2

IIRC, there was a case in NYC where DNA evidence conclusively proved a man innocent. He had already served 12 of his 14 year sentence. The prosecution argued, hard, that he should remain in jail pending retrial. Because he was a flight risk.

Now, I don’t know. If I was sure I was going to be aquitted on retrial, and I hadn’t seen my wife and now-grown children in 12 years, and the worst that could happen would be another measly two years in jail after I had already done 12 years time, I think I might just stay at home with the kids and watch the prosecution get shot down in flames in the retrial. Not try to, say, flee the country.

Some (many?) prosecutors have no shame. I would think that they would feel badly enough knowing that they had jailed the wrong man, not try to PROLONG that inprisonment.

Just my two cents.

mischievous

3

Until now, the appeals process in Virginia could only consider questions of whether the accused received a fair trial. The quality of the evidence provided to the original jury was not an appealable question, provided such evidence was obtained and presented legally.

On Election Day, voters in Virginia passed an amendment allowing larger questions to be considered on appeal:

Text of Question: Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended to permit the Supreme Court to consider, as part of its original jurisdiction, claims of actual innocence presented by convicted felons in the cases and manner provided by the General Assembly?

Yes 1,092,072 73%
No 411,664 27%

Results courtesy of the Washington Post.

This will allow new evidence to be considered, and considered in a court of law, where it belongs. Not by journalists or other outside parties, with agendas, who may not act in the best interest of the accused or the people of the Commonwealth.

4

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Prosecutors seem to see cases in terms of winning and losing rather than finding out the truth. Exculpatory DNA evidence could be embarrassing or damaging to their careers so they would rather avoid doing the tests altogether, and then invent specious (and self-deceptive) rationalizations about why they didn’t “need” them.

This is bad enough, but what about when a prosecutor KNOWS absolutely for a FACT that DNA has exonerated a person they convicted, and they STILL insist on defending the conviction. How do they justify to THEMSELVES the fact that they are deliberately destroying the life of an innocent person?

IMHO, not only should state funded DNA testing be mandatory (if evidence is available) in ALL cases of rape, murder or the like, but if any person is ever found to have been wrongfully convicted, the prosecutor should have to take their place in prison. THEN these people would make damn sure they were right about who they railroaded.

5

Prosecutions like to keep hold of convictions. There is policy being discussed on the role of post trial DNA evidence. Here is information on a group working on overturning convictions post trial.

I’m not a lawyer, but from what I understand there is no search for truth. The prosecutor’s job is to prosecute. The defense’s job is to defend. When both do their jobs to the best of their abilities, then justice has been served.

6

The right of access to evidence by the press is guaranteed by the first amendment.

What right does the commonwealth have to destroy evidence without testing it?

7

I am not as convinced as many other people that DNA evidence “proves innocence” as often as claimed. Many times it may merely show that there is more to the story than perviously thought. I believe people are overly swayed by the science of DNA and forget that the science only shows that X is or is not a match to Y - what the implications of that are remain dependent on logical reasoning.

In the example given in the OP (& I think this is rather common) testing the DNA might prove that he did not rape the victim, but would not necessarily imply that he did not kill her. (I’m unsure what would happen if he was one of several rapists). Assuming that there is ample evidence on the latter score that is not dependent on him also being a/the rapist, such testing would merely provide an opportunity to mislead.

An example of this has also come up with regards to the recent “Central Park Jogger” case.

I would also note that the OP refers to cases where the accused has already been executed. In such cases the primary motive for testing is to provide ammunition for death penalty opponents. This is not comparable to fighting such evidence at trial, as the OP tries to imply.

I don’t believe this is true.

8

Nowhere in the First Amendment is this mentioned. It possibly is covered by the Sixth Amendment guarantees of a public trial. IANAL, but I believe there is no unfettered right of the press to evidence.

9

You’ll damn all prosecutors due to two cases in Virginia and George Bush? You can all Bush many things, but you can’t call him a prosecutor.

Do you have some reason to believe that when prosecutors get a case these days, they refuse to allow DNA testing to be done?

And IzzyR has ti right. DNA by itself isn’t going to tell you mush. You need to look at all the evidence. For excample, say a woman is raped by three men, but the DNA evidence is only from one man. Does this mean she really was only raped once? No. It also doesn’t mean that the two guys not identified get a free pass for the crime.

If you want to rant about screwed up decisions made by politicians in Virginia, feel free. That doesn’t mean that all prosecutors everywhere are making the same bad mistakes.

10

That is true, to a point, but there is a concept in the law known as “prosecutorial discretion”. The District Attorney (or other applicable prosecuting authority) is expected to use its discretion in determining whether to bring a charge, what charge to bring, and what sentence to ask for. The DA is supposed to use this discretion in order to seek justice, and do what is best for society. If they think a person is not-guilty, notwithstanding the fact that there may be enough circumstantial evidence to convict, they should absolutely not bring the case.

There has been a lot written lately about the misuse of prosecutorial discretion, especially in recent years. (An Example). With mandatory sentencing guidelines, three-strikes laws, zero-tolerance, and the like, the prosecutor’s decision of whether to prosecute, what crime to charge, whether to seek three-strikes treatment, etc., is an incredibly powerful tool. Unfortunately, too many prosecutors seem to ignore the responsiblity that comes with that power, instead seeking personal glorifaction, etc. You end up with, for example, (1) congressional hearings on the Martha Stewart case (for less than 5,000 shares of stock), (2) a jury trial, using up court time, and the time of 9 assistant district attorneys, to prosecute Winona Ryder for shoplifting, (3) the three strikes cases which are currently being considered by the US Supreme Court, where individuals have been given life sentences for, in one case, stealing $150 dollars worth of video tapes, and in another, stealing three golf clubs (neither case involved any violence, harm or threat to another person), and (4) this case, where they are putting a french citizen through the wringer for a minor dust-up at airport security.
No one seems to be looking at the bigger picture, and it is a shame.

11

Hijack:

According to Ann Coulter, DNA evidence is all bullshit, 100 % of the time. In a column entitled “DNA evidence exonerates Hitler!” she wrote:

Every single one! That’s a pretty whacky thing to say without a bit of scientific evidence to back it up. I don’t know if I should be puzzled about why anyone takes this person seriously or if I should be mad because I got a B.S. in molecular biology and spent a year in medical school without ever being let in on the big Nazi DNA hoax.

I apologize for the slight hijack, but it seemed to be more efficient to put this here than start a separate thread about it.

12

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. A defendant doesn’t have to prove he’s NOT a rapist.

What’s WRONG with giving ammo to death penalty oppononants? If the state executes an innocent person, doesn’t the public have a right to KNOW that? Why should the state be allowed to permanantly destroy any chance to find ot definively what the truth is?

What about the dozens of death row inmates who have been utterly cleared by DNA evidence? Why do prosectors still fight to keep people in prison who they KNOW are innocent?

I damn GWB because he was the guy who signed the death warrant, and he made an arrogant, asinine assertion that the state of Texas is infallible when it comes to executions.

13

Thank you for this thread, Diogenes. It is grotesquely shameful, of course. One more on the List of Reasons Why I’m Seriously Considering Moving to France.

Precisely. And you don’t think executing innocent people is a good reason to consider dismantling the death penalty?

And regarding your (silly) statement:

I really have no idea in this particular case, but I know that many states only apply the death penalty under certain circumstances, such as murder WITH rape, so if this guy DID murder her but wasn’t her rapist (good grief!), it is possible the death penalty shouldn’t have applied.

I would love to know the thought processes of the 411,664 people who voted NO to the question of whether claims of ACTUAL FUCKING INNOCENCE should be considered by the Supreme Court of the state where I was born and am so incredibly glad I did not remain.

And by the way…wouldn’t evidence be covered under the Freedom of Information Act? What exactly does that cover? (And I would think that the defense/his heirs would have some kind of rights regarding the evidence. This whole thing is just so wrong…)

God knows I love my country, but my distaste for my countrymen grows with each passing year.

14

I don’t like you, Diogenes the Cynic, because you’re making me defend the Commonwealth and, indirectly, to some extent, the death penalty. The latter I abhor, and believe is completely barbaric. And in my previously life I had plenty of opportunity to deal with Commonwealth Attorneys, who were a mixed bag, to put it kindly.

However, I’d point out that your claim above is incorrect as applied to this case. There was a trial. Mr. Coleman was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden after that is not on the prosecution; it’s on the appellant to show defects in his trial.

I share your outrage, but I know a bit more about how the law works than you see to. The court’s decision was correct on the law.

The newspapers in this case sought permission to independently test the genetic material. As the Virginia Supremes put it:

In other words, there is no law under which newspapers may demand access to genetic material for the purpose of testing. It’s as simple as that.

The problem is not in this law, by the way, but in the system which permits the state to take a man’s life in the first place. There is always an interest in finality of prosecution. We cannot have convicted persons continually offering up new grounds upon which their convictions should be overturned.

At the same time, we should have an overriding interest in justice.

These two ideas are in tension, and it’s a tension made worse by the finality of an execution. Once executed, the state has every reason not to revisit the merits of the executed prisoner’s case, since it cannot provide any remedy for its error, and to discover an error would be horrifying indeed.

I’m not in favor of newspapers having the ability to demand evidence in criminal cases so they can conduct their own experiments. But I am in favor of getting the state out of the business of killing people, so they don’t have to worry about making such a potentially horrible error.

Mr. Bush didn’t sign Coleman’s death warrant. He has nothing to do with this case.

Like you, however, I do not share his optimism that Texas has never executed an innocent man. Given the number of executions conducted in Texas, and given the reversals based on DNA that we’ve seen in the past years, I think the odds are fair that at least one person was executed in Texas for a crime he didn’t commit. All the more reason to stop the death penalty.

  • Rick
15

You seem to have ignored my last sentence. Please reread.

I don’t know. If you have such cases, by all means whip them out. If they have indeed been cleared, I would certainly agree with you. But so far, you haven’t done that.

It is a concern, but not an overriding one.

Great point, if you insist on conjuring up an unusual scenario where a person is a victim of two separate crimes. But it is also possible that there was no rape at all - the semen might have been there from a consensual sexual encounter. Or that of two participants in the crime one was the rapist and the other (or both) the murderer.

16

There might some value in explaining how even claims of actual innocence ought to have some sort of limit attached to them.

The rule in Virginia right now is that all Supreme Court appeals must be made within 30 days of the final verdict from the Court of Appeals. You cannot make an appeal once that time has elapsed, and you must raise all the errors you’re claiming in that appeal. (Possible exception when claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, but that’s not relevant here).

This means that even if evidence of actual innocence comes to light, it cannot, by rule, be considered once the the time period has passed.

This is rather harsh.

In the case of a penalty of death, it’s inhumane.

The Virginia Supreme Court is considering a proposed new rule, Rule 3A:15A, which would make an exception for newly-discovered evidence, if the motion comes within a reasonable time after the new evidence is discovered. “New evidence” must have been unknown at time oif trial, and, moreso, must not have been reasonably discoverable at the time of trial. It cannot be merely cumulative, corroborative, or collateral, it cannot be impeachment evidence, and it must produce a reasonable likelihood that, had it been known at trial, the results might have been different.

It’s about time.

  • Rick
17

This is a breathtaking statement.

Hard to imagine you standing by it if you were the one being wrongfully executed.

Unfuckingbelieveable.

18

I was referring to death warrants in Texas. (“warrant” should have been pluralized) I can see how it would look like I was referring to the OP case.

I didn’t ignore it, it was irrelevant.

Scroll up and read Mischievous’ post for one.

This still excludes too much. For example it would not allow impeachment evidence. This means that if it can be proven that a key witness lied on the stand, that could not be considered as evidence of innocence. (IIRC, a man was executed in Texas recently who was convicted solely on the evidence of one eyewitness.)

I’m not a lawyer, but just seems so damn weasely to me that the courts would oppose ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE for ANY FUCKING REASON.

Nor should a state have the right to destroy evidence or prevent the press from EXAMINING evidence (which is all DNA testing really is, and which IS protected by the first amendment) after a case has been disposed of. It is, in fact, the RESPONSIBILITY of the press to do this. When the state destroys evidence it is doing it solely protect itself from embarassment and criticism. Not good enough reasons.

19

I was referring to death warrants in Texas. (“warrant” should have been pluralized) I can see how it would look like I was referring to the OP case.

I didn’t ignore it, it was irrelevant.

Scroll up and read Mischievous’ post for one.

This still excludes too much. For example it would not allow impeachment evidence. This means that if it can be proven that a key witness lied on the stand, that could not be considered as evidence of innocence. (IIRC, a man was executed in Texas recently who was convicted solely on the evidence of one eyewitness.)

I’m not a lawyer, but just seems so damn weasely to me that the courts would oppose ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE for ANY FUCKING REASON.

Nor should a state have the right to destroy evidence or prevent the press from EXAMINING evidence (which is all DNA testing really is, and which IS protected by the first amendment) after a case has been disposed of. It is, in fact, the RESPONSIBILITY of the press to do this. When the state destroys evidence it is doing it solely protect itself from embarassment and criticism. Not good enough reasons.

20

Sorry about the @##**#@ double post.