Spare you? From what? The truth? From the analysis the courts used?
You can’t handle the truth!
Or at least the courts and the legislature can’t. They sure don’t seem to want to be invilved in anything that might upset tte jury’s determination of the truth. In Patrick, for instance, the court essentially said, hey, there’s plenty of evidence this guy did it, so we don’t need to test the sperm samples.
I KNOW there’s plenty of evidence Patrick did it. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. Hell, I’m more than convinced he did it, just as his own attorney conceded that the most likely result of the testing would be a match to the defendant. But the testing should be available ANYWAY. The chances of harm are minimal, while the consequences of preventing investigation of something that could quickly and easily prove a person’s actual innocence are dire. Give him the damn test, then fry the s.o.b.
How would it prove the guy’s “actual innocence”? If I had the bite marks and blood evidence etc. on the one hand and negative testing from the sperm on the other, does it prove that he is innocent?
The Texas law makes a lot of sense - if the DNA won’t prove innocence anyway (or at least change the verdict), there’s no reason to allow it.
But in the vast majority of the cases, INCLUDING THE ONES YOU CITED, the testing WOULDN’T PROVE ANYTHING!!! That’s one of the fucking points. The testing each of those defendants wanted wouldn’t “quickly and easily prove a person’s actual innocence”. THAT’S WHY THEY WERE DENIED. Not because the mean ole State and the evil ole Courts want to kill innocent people.
With the huge drain on State resources, the huge waiting time for lab tests (right now I have to wait 45-90 days to get DNA results on PENDING cases, let alone appellate cases), and the drain on courts time, I completely understand, and advocate that there be some limits on this kind of testing. Especially when the results would prove NOTHING.
Ah, so you’re taking the position that if there is sufficient evidence that the accused did the crime, then there is no need to permit further investigation and testing, nor any need to consider further exculatory evidence. Does that about sum it up?
Just because The Wizard of Oz is on Sunday doesn’t mean you get to create Strawmen, minty.
Do your further investigation, gather the exculPatory evidence, and present it in your post-conviction petition. That’s what’s happened in every case cited in this thread. I never said anything different, and implying I did is a cheap ass comment.
If you want to conduct DNA testing on evidence, just make sure that the results may have a chance to prove your client innocent. Ain’t that hard a concept to get. Maybe if you reread the cases… Or actually read my posts…
Too much to ask?
Lovely idea.
EXCEPT THE COURTS AND THE PROSECUTORS WON’T GIVE THE ATTORNEYS ACCESS TO THE MOTHERFUCKING EVIDENCE.
Other than that minor quibble, it’s really a great point you’re making there. Thanks for sharing.
I would say it is more dependent on how conclusive the DNA evidence will be. But to the extent that the other evidence factors into that, it would play a role as well.
IOW, if the other evidence was eyewitness accounts of strangers, and it was clear that only one criminal was involved, then the issue of whose DNA is found on the victim would be pretty conclusive. OTOH, if there is other conclusive evidence, and the DNA evidence itself is NOT conclusive (e.g. the case cited above where the hairs could have come from numerous people besides the murderer) than I would say no.
There would certainly be some borderline cases, but the general guidelines are sound.
Oh for fuck’s sake, minty are you being deliberately obtuse? Nobody is hiding relevant evidence. Nobody is stopping you from getting all the false recantations and other confessions you can. All you don’t get to have the DNA testing done on the evidence because, NO MATTER WHAT, the results won’t prove anything. And here I thought it was an easy concept to grasp. You want flash cards? Maybe a strip-o-gram? Puppets? Dr. Suess board book?
To the contrary, I am telling you that yes, courts and the prosecutors are sitting on physical evidence and refusing to make it available to defense attorneys attempting to prove their clients’ claims of actual innocence. How the fuck do you think expect defense counsel to investigate those claims if they are denied the evidence necessary for that investigation? And DO NOT tell me that doesn’t happen, 'cause I assure you it does.
Your theory seems to be that it’s okay for the convicted person to be be denied access to an item unless the proposed analysis would conclusively demonstrate that the accused did not commit the crime. But innocence is rarely determinable based on any individual piece of evidence.
Okay, the eyewitness the state put on the stand has recanted. But you still lose because of all this other evidence. The jury could have convicted even without the eyewitness.
Okay, the knife the police found in the sock drawer couldn’t have created the wound in the victim’s back. But they can’t rule it out for the other eight stab wounds, so a reasonable jury could still have convicted.
Okay, the shoeprint the state said couldn’t be identified at trial really can be identified, and it doesn’t match any of the defendant’s shoes. But the defendant could have thrown away the shoes after killing the victim, and the defense can’t show whether it’s a size 9-1/2 or a the defendant’s size 10, so a reasonable jury could still have convicted.
Okay, the semen recovered from the victim could be tested, but even if it didn’t belong to the defendant that wouldn’t prove he didn’t rape her because maybe he wore a condom or didn’t ejaculate.* A reasonable jury could still have convicted.
Okay, a newly discovered security tape from a 7-11 down the street shows that a person closely resembling a description provided by the defendant’s witness was in the neighborhood ten minutes before the crime occurred. But there’s nothing to show that person committed the murder instead of the accused, so a reasonable jury could still have convicted.
Okay, we could test the blood on the accused’s pants. But even if the blood didn’t belong to the victim, as the prosecution contended at trial, all that would prove is that somebody else’s blood was on the accused’s pants. A reasonable jury could still have convicted the defendant.
So fuck you, we don’t care what the testing might show. Prepare to fry.
*That’s an actual opinion by the presiding judge of the TCCA, by the way. I kid you not.
Yay minty.
Holy shit. “Sure, the prosecutors made part of their case on this, but still, no need to consider that if this bit was wrong the case could have gone another way.” I feel dirty.
Gee minty, you’d might have made a point if all your examples were in one case as oppossed to cobbled together from other cases and hypotheticals. Let’s take the one example that made your little sycophantic monkey eris feel oh so dirty.
Katherine Thompson and Shelley Cutler are found dead after the Fire Department arrived on a call on the fire alarm. Thompson had been shot twice, once at point blank in the abdomen, once in the head. Cutler died of a gunshot to the head. Police investigate and find Thompson’s appointment planner and find she had an appointment with Cutler at 7:30. There was also a patient application form for a Ricky Dinkins, and his place of employment. Dinkins gets interviewed and says he was there, and heard the fire alarm and saw some “black male” fleeing from the building. Later, after the police seize a .357 from his truck and the blue jeans, they interview him. This time he gives a written statement saying:
More testimony:
And, surprise, surprise, with the confession, the murder weapon, the arm sling, and the original blood tests, he gets convicted.
With all this evidence, and the fact that the blood was tested, albeit without the DNA available now, I have no problem with the court denying his motion for DNA testing. There is NO POSSIBLE RESULT of those tests that would influence, one way or the other, whether or not Dinkins is guilty of two cold-blooded murders.
I said it before and I’ll say it again:
Wow. You seem to be arguing my case for me. Even most of those who are acquitted are guilty.
Not to mention that this would argue against the “get the accused at all costs” version of how prosecutors behave.
Let’s see some proof that they were innocent.
Guilt was established, and survived the appeals process. What reason do you have to doubt their guilt?
Regards,
Shodan
Fuck off Shodan. I have no use for your embrace of intentional ignorance.
Hamlet, my hypotheticals were intended to be considered as part of a single case. If I can’t get access to the evidence, amigo, I can’t even begin to argue that the combined weight of the evidence demonstrates the convicted person is innocent, can I? Without access to the pants, the knife, and the shoeprint, the accused is simply fucked, and I can’t get access to the pants, the knife, and the shoeprint unless I first demonstrate that each item, on its own, would prove the convicted person’s innocence. Nice little Catch-22 there, eh?
Plus, your quoted material simply demonstrates, once again, that your basic argument is there’s plenty of evidence the accused did it, so he’s not entitled to anything else. Fuck him. Get ready to fry.
And Jesus Christ, delete the extra line breaks next time. Reading those quotes is next to impossible.
Dinkins v. State, 84 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim App. 2002)
Kutzner v. State, 75 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)
State v. Patrick, __ S.W.3d ___, No. 74,191 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 11, 2002)
But it’s not up to the prosecutor whether the witness gets to testify - it’s up to the judge. The prosecutor can only ask that the witness’s testimony be stricken or that the witness not be permitted to testify. Isn’t it the same with denying DNA tests or results? The prosecutor can only move to deny… a judge has the final say, and that say should reflect the law. Why shouldn’t a prosecutor move to deny DNA that may hurt his case, if he’s convinced that all other evidence is relevant and proves guilt. Leave it up to the judge to accept or deny the motion.
Because the DA shouldn’t just be concerned with “the case”< but with actual guilt. If the DNA is exculpetory in nature, even if the ‘other evidence’ demonstrates guilt, it still should be included.
Eye witnesses can be wrong. Other witnesses can lie. confessions can be coerced. there’s even been cases where the FBI ‘expert’ testified wrongfully re: scientific evidence. So, when you say ‘the other evidence proved guilt’, keep in mind all of the cases where years later, people were released as being truly innocent, even though they were found guilty ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, and certainly those cases, the prosecutor thought the ‘rest of the evidence proved guilt’ (especially since the juries in question apparently agreed)
What do you know. We agree. If everything in your hypothetical was one, real case, you’d actually have a point. Whoopee fucking do. And I’d agree with you too. That the defendant should/would get access to the evidence. Of course, there are a couple problems. If you presented all your hypothetical evidence at the hearing for DNA testing, the court would probably grant it. Then you wouldn’t be able to use it as a hypothetical anymore. In every case I read, the court has considered the evidence as a whole in determining whether DNA testing should be ordered. It’s not “each piece on it’s own test” you seem to make it out to be. Otherwise, good try.
**
My God, you do need fucking Dr. Seuss books. Here goes.
Pup Cup - Pup on Cup
Cup Pup - Cup on Pup
Mouse House - Mouse on House
IF THE FUCKING TEST WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S INNOCENCE, THEN THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE TEST.
Now if I could only rhyme that.
There is a huge difference, that you just don’t seem to be grasping, that yes, part of the determination whether the evidence will have a bearing on the defendant’s guilt or innocence is the strength of the case around the piece of evidence sought to be tested. He could be entitled to test stuff, for example your hypothetical. That isn’t the case in the three cases you cited before.
You’re right. I apologize. Thanks for the links too.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be included. I’m saying that if the other evidence is exculpetory and the law requires its inclusion, then the judge should rule against the prosecutor’s motion and allow the evidence. My original premise being that if exculpetory (I like that word) evidence is ultimately suppressed, then the judge is to blame, not the prosecutor.
But it would have a bearing on the determination of the defendant’s innocence. It would simply be incapable of demonstrating, by itself, that no reasonable jury could have convicted if such evidence had been presented at trial.
My position is that access and testing should be granted if it is capable of revealing any probative evidence of innocence, and that includes poking holes in the prosecution’s theory of the case. That doesn’t get you a new trial, of course, but it at least allows the convicted person an opportunity to investigate and present all the evidence that could be capable of demonstrating actual innocence.
And if they get the evidence, and they do the testing, and it still shows he did it and that the death sentence was appropriate? Fuck him. Get ready to fry.