Bricker. I’m not sure how we got on this topic in this thread, but I think we agree that striking jurors on the basis of race is wrong. And I’m not naive enough to think that it doesn’t happen. When it does, it’s wrong. We could spend a whole thread discussing things such as the inherent instability of reasons for striking jurors, the issues of defense counsel doing it also, the underlying presumption that exists that if a minority person is indeed struck by the State, it MUST be because of race, and, more troubling, the inherent problem I have with the implication that a white jury cannot give a fair trial to a minority defendant. But regardless, it does happen, and it’s wrong. And it’s illegal.
I wasn’t convinced until the mad smiley. 
As much as it pains me, I think you have a point. That’s why about half the states, Illinois included, have enacted legislation that gives inmates the right to DNA testing for post-conviction petitions. That kind of legislation is definately a step in the right direction, and hopefully your state will adopt it also.
But I can tell you I’ve also oppossed motions for DNA testing, too. One case a pro se defendant wanted DNA testing on a beer bottle that was found in his car when he was arrested for DUI. I resisted that. I resisted a defense counsel’s motion for DNA testing of his clients pants, because they were not the pants he was wearing when the crime occurred and the chain of evidence was iffy at best. So there are valid reasons other than prosecutors don’t give a shit about the truth, for resisting DNA testing.
Dio So, Coleman is guilty but we should release evidence to newspapers to “test” it anyway to appease the death penalty opponents? That’s your point? Oh, see, I thought it was that prosecutors didn’t give a shit about the truth. Or that prosecutors who would resist this action must be doing so to hide the truth or out of fear. I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply that either. Or that my conviction, or the appellate court’s rulings that Coleman is guilty doesn’t mean jack shit to you. You probably didn’t mean that either. Or that by maligning my profession, you sure as hell are maligning me, and my friends, and others you’ve never met. I’m sure you didn’t mean that either.
Coleman was executed about a decade ago. It’s not about fear of what the tests will show, or attempts to hide the truth that the Court ruled that the newspapers have no right to get evidence used in a case. It’s about legal analysis, finality of cases, and concern for giving an interest in evidence to uninterested parties. The legal system is not and should not be in the business of providing evidence to zealots.
And I guarantee you, even if the tests were done and came back just like the prior DNA test, that it was the defendant, you would still have people claiming his innocence. Some people just ain’t gonna be convinced no matter what.
We did. Same result. :mad:
I’d wager that, a century ago, most Southern whites were in favor of lynching “uppity niggras.” Didn’t make it a good idea. In this case, I suppose, I’d need to redefine “us” somehow (as in “Not a good enough reason for most of us”) - I wonder what the prevailing sentiment is among SDMB posters? Another thread, another time…
I didn’t say I thought he was guilty, either. I don’t know. Neither do you. We have the ability to find out for sure. there is no excuse not to do it.
I still don’t understand your objection to letting newspapers test the evidence. It’s a freedom of the press issue as far as I am concerned. Since when does the state have a right to hide evidence from the public?
You keep calling the press an “uninterested” party as if that appelation had some merit. Does the phrase “public record” mean anything to you? If the state kills an innocent person doesn’t the public have a right to know that? It seems disingenuous to me to argue on the one hand that “well, you can’t really prove any innocent people have been executed” and then on the other hand destroy any evidence which COULD prove it.
Not very many. (not me for instance) but if you’re really so concerned about anti-death penalty “zealots,” then why wouldn’t you want as much evidence on your side as you can get? Aren’t you actually giving DP foes MORE ammunition by at least APPEARING to suppress evidence? Do you feel, as Shodan apparantly does, that the newspapers are actually going to conspire to fake the test results? Is the print media really a sophisticated cabal of zealots, bent on bringing down the state by any means necessary?
(btw are all death penalty opponants “zealots,” or just some? If not what separates the rational from the zealous? Are there PRO death penalty zealots?)
You’ll forgive me if I don’t just take a prosecutor’s word for it that someone is guilty, just as, I’m sure, you do not take a defense attorney’s word for it that someone is not guilty. Appelate courts look for procedural errors, they aren’t really deciding the truth of the verdict.
I am an empiricist. I just want to know what the truth is. To me it seems like DNA is a little black box with the answer in it. It may be possible to prove a case without opening the box, but I would feel so much better if we opened it anyway. In the vast majority of cases, it’s going to help the prosecution anyway, and it helps to short circuit some of the more specious cause celebres. I do not want guilty people to go free. I just want to know who they are, especially if we’re going to kill them. You yourself, Have conceded that DP cases are different and that we should not have ANY doubt. (whether you believe it’s reasonable or not)
As for maligning all prosecutors, well, Ok that’s out of line, I was reacting emotionally after reading about the Coleman case and others where I felt that prosecutors were obstructing DNA tests for no good reason. You’ve done a good job explaining prosecutorial motives, and I don’t believe that most prosecutors want to convict innocent people. They stand up for victims and they genuinely protect us from the scum of our society.
Do you believe, however, that a prosecutor may sometimes delude himself that a (possibly) innocent person is guilty because of pressure to convict, sympathy for victims, or other reasons? I am talking about sincere motivations here, not cynical ones.
One more question. Does the legislation you refer to, allowing inmates access to DNA testing, provide for funding of tests by the state or does that burden fall to the appellant? It is my understanding (correct me if I’m wring) that the cost of DNA testing can be prohibitive in many cases.
**
Sure I do. So does the jury. So does the appellate court. So does most everyone whose really considered the case. Is it in the realm of possibility he wasn’t, I guess so. But DNA test on the vaginal swab won’t prove it one way or another.
**
You know, this would be easier to debate if, Oh, I don’t know here, maybe if you, oh …READ THE FUCKING COURT OPINION. Once you do that, then get back to me. Here’s a preview: it ain’t hiding evidence, and it ain’t a right of the press.
**
Hey, let’s go back to my prior desire that you make an informed determination and maybe READ THE FUCKING OPINION!! Yes, “public record” means something to me, you fucking nitwit, and whatta know, there it is in the opinion. Go figure. The vaginal swab is not a public record.
**
My point was that no amount of evidence will convince some people. Why not require the State to try people twice, then we would be doubley sure of guilt. Or three times, so we can be super duper sure. And only if there is DNA evidence to back it up, otherwise we can’t punish anybody. There is a long-held, widely used line that the criminal justice has for determining guilt. Coleman is well over that line.
I honestly don’t much care about what some people think. You are close to being one of those.
**
Not all print media, not any specific person, but I wouldn’t put it past somebody. And my concerns aren’t only the validity of the test.
**
I’m what I would call a rational death penalty opponent, but I also understand that the people have spoken on it and have decided it is worthwhile to have. And I’ll do everything in my power to make sure nobody innocent ever is executed. And sure there are pro death penalty zealots.
**
Sure, I imagine it happens. If you had put your OP and your other posts with this language, I suppose this wouldn’t be such a train wreck.
If the inmate can’t afford it, the State will pay.
Sorry minty. At least you can console yourself at night that your client was guilty.
Seriously though, I imagine the argument about the testing was interesting. If you don’t want to share, that’s more than fine, though.
My comments are unrelated to my client. I refer to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision a month or two ago that severely, severely restricted the scope of DNA testing available under the statute. Basically, you now have to first prove that the DNA test will show your client is innocent before you can obtain post-conviction DNA testing. A lovely little Catch-22 there, isn’t it?
Oh.
Texas.
I see.
And I should quickly apologize to Diogenes for the personal attacks. Please reread my post without those. I’m sorry.
I honestly don’t see what your point is. Earlier, you seemed to be arguing against capital punishment based on majority opinion:
I pointed out the irony of this argument, and now you seem to be arguing against this sort of reasoning (based upon majority opinion).
Whatever.
Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, vengeance is sufficient reason for me to support capital punishment. For you, it might not be.
I realize that this comment isn’t addressed to me, but I’m totally with Hamlet on this one.
Let me ask you this: Let’s suppose we have a situation where somebody is “exonerated” by DNA evidence. Let’s suppose further that later, the National Review wants to do their own test of the evidence using what they claim is a more sophisticated test that is less likely to produce false negatives. Would you object?
No, I would not object. As I said, I’m coming at this from an empirical angle, not a political one.
I would argue that it’s rather insufficient as vengence. I did not feel particularly gratified that Timothy McVeigh was allowed to receive a shot in the arm and then go to sleep. It’s just way too easy as far as I’m concerned. It just doesn’t feel like punishment to me. I’d much rather see someone like that have to spend a lifetime atoning for their actions through hard labor, minimal amenities, etc.
But that’s the whole point of the OP – the DA is refusing to release evidence in relation to a person that has already been executed, thus making it difficult, if not impossible to determine whether they were wrongfully executed. Given that, according to both Death Penalty Focus, and the Moratorium Campaign, “Over 100 innocent Americans have been exonerated from death row in just the last two decades”, and 712 people have been executed (See this page for state by state statistics), it is not unreasonable to assume that out those executed, some may well have been innocent. If there is evidence that a significant number of innocent people have been executed, that evidence should be made part of the discussion.
(and Hamlet is right, my earlier post is really a separate rannt about prosecutorial discretion in general)
Sophistry.
Well…I’m a strong opponent to the death penalty, and I luckily live in a country where it’s banned.
Nevertheless, I perfectly understand why the court would decide that evidences can’t be handed to the press for independant examinations.
Let’s assume I run an independant “paper”, that I ha
Diogenes, first let me say that in a general sense, I sympathize with your sentiment. I very strongly believe that an institutionalized death-penalty is a bad idea, because no court is infallible and we must expect errors to be made. Once someone has been killed, a wrongful conviction is an unrecoverable error. David Milgaard spent 23 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, until his name was cleared by DNA testing. The crime for which he was sentenced would be considered a capital crime in some jurisdictions which allow for the death penalty. Ditto the cases of Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall, and Thomas Sophonow, all within recent memory. I think it’s very important that a justice system allows room to recover from inevitable error. Dead is dead.
That being said, after you look at the specifics of Cole’s conviction, it’s clear that further DNA testing couldn’t possibly have any bearing on the courts’ determination of his guilt. The possibility of an accomplice was presented to the jury. Even if there was a post hoc determination that someone else raped her, Cole would still not be exonerated. So further testing (in this context) would be a waste of time and money.
The only compelling reason for not destroying the evidence would be that it may be useful in pursuing additional prosecutions. Apparently, the state has determined (probably with good reason) that further prosecutions are unlikely, and the case is closed. While some of the circumstances of the case suggest to me that Wanda’s neighbor is a bit suspect and warrants a close looking-at, I think it’s likely that the same thing has occured to investigators and they have concluded that it’s not worth pursuing.
Even if you remain convinced of the man’s innocence, demanding further DNA testing is totally pointless. The court’s decisions regarding his appeals are the only decisions possible under the law-- weighing the arguments that the defense presented against those of the prosecution, it’s easy to see why things turned out the way they did.
Trying to argue this man’s innocence, and yoking the argument to a philosophical opposition to capital punishment, gives the regrettable impression that opponents of the death penalty are either ignorant or feel that murderers shouldn’t be punished at all for their crimes.
Nobody can help having an opinion, but it’s our duty to make sure that it’s an informed opinion.
Please accept my apologies if this sounds overly-critical. I know that you are speaking from the right place, in that you have a sense of the fundamental flaws of capital punishment. You and I are on the same page there, believe me. But this case in particular illustrates the dangers of letting your heart rule your head. Colouring Cole’s conviction as an injustice without considering both sides of the argument is a serious mistake, and dangerously counterproductive if your aim is to add weight to the abolitionist side of the death-penalty debate.
Cheers.
Well, I still disagree with ya, but I’ll give you that you’re consistent. In essence, you’re saying that anyone and everyone should be able to have access to evidence, perform whatever tests they want, and announce whatever results they want.
(emphasis mine)
Well, that’s how you feel. A lot of people feel differently. There’s really no need to debate the issue; it’s a matter of personal values.