fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:55 am

DNA exoneration of inmates and those on death row is not uncommon. In fact, in 2002, CNN had an article discussing the exoneration of 110 prisoners based on DNA alone. Many of whom were on death row. Imagine how many times we have falsely put people to death (the only reason I am against the death penalty).

Well, I was reading this article on msnbc: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15117639/

Note this:
______________

"James Owens Jr., 46, and James Thompson Jr., 47, were convicted in 1988 of stabbing and strangling Colleen Williar during what police and prosecutors described as a burglary that became a rape and murder.

The two are serving life sentences, Owens without chance of parole.

The new tests were conducted on semen recovered from a pair of jeans that were kept by the medical examiner's office, said the Office of the Public Defender.

Despite opposition by prosecutors, the sample was released in May 2006 for testing, about two years after defense attorneys made their first request.

Tests results became available late last month, showing the semen did not belong to Owens or Thompson."

______________

Here's what I don't understand. Why would prosecutors be against proof that would exonerate someone they wrongly convicted? Do they just want conviction, guilty or not? Do they not care if they have the wrong guy in prison or on death row?

I think that DNA testing should be mandatory under circumstances where it could exonerate (or rightly convict) a suspect. That a prosecutor/prosecutors would be against bringing in irrefutible evidence like this blows my mind.

Or is there more to this?

People have even argued with me that mandating DNA testing would be too expensive. Would you rather have the wrong guy in prison or put to death than spend a little extra cash? Give me a break. Sick.
 
redngold
Posts: 6673
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:58 am

Because prosecutors, like almost any other human being, hate to be proven wrong. Some also feel that DNA retesting isn't worth the expense if the rest of their evidence is strongly in favor of their case. In other words, they don't want to waste taxpayers' money on a stab in the dark (no pun intended.)

I'm in favor of wasting taxpayers' money if it has bearing on a life in prison or death sentence.
Up, up and away!
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Unders

Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am

This is what taxpayer money is for. You keep the masses safe by putting the right people behind bars, not the people you can eloquently convince a jury are the "right" people.

If we need to add "and if so requested, DNA testing must be conducted" into the Bill of Rights, then so be it.

[Edited 2006-10-16 01:01:29]
 
darrenthe747
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 4:40 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:01 am

I would guess that prosecuting attornies don't want to look like idiots. If they (the convicted) are proven not guilty then they would look bad because they have put the wrong guy away and the real killer is still on the loose...in other word they failed to do their job and they'll get the boot. It's truly disturbing to think that you could have destroyed a person's life and you have the tools to right the wrong but you won't because of your narcissistc ego. I think that it is a blatant example of obstruction of justice and those opposed to it belong behind bars themselves.
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:04 am

Quoting FSPilot747 (Thread starter):
Why would prosecutors be against proofrnthat would exonerate someone they wrongly convicted? Do they just wantrnconviction, guilty or not

Yes, the scariest event in one life could be a prosecutor with an agenda. Other times it was just bad police work, and the pressure in the community demands an conviction.

Quoting FSPilot747 (Thread starter):
Do they not care if they have the wrong guy in prison or on death row?

Looks bad when its time to come up for reelection and as Redngold wrote

Quoting Redngold (Reply 1):
prosecutors, like almost any other human being, hate to be proven wrong
 
darrenthe747
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 4:40 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:09 am

Quoting Redngold (Reply 1):
Because prosecutors, like almost any other human being, hate to be proven wrong.

While I too hate to be proven wrong, if it were in the case of me sending a man to death row I would want to know then for sure.
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
 
ShyFlyer
Posts: 4698
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:38 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:25 am

Quoting FSPilot747 (Thread starter):
Why would prosecutors be against proof that would exonerate someone they wrongly convicted?

Along with what Redngold and AirCop offered, Prosecutors are just like Defense Attorneys: They play to win and don't like to lose. Notice the hurt looks on the faces of Prosecutors when they are interviewed following a trial in which the accused was found not guilty.
I lift things up and put them down.
 
TPAnx
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 4:53 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:29 am

I remember reading that in some states in which a deadline had been set for
requesting DNA testing...prosecutors were destroying evidence. Anyone else have the same recollection??
TPAnx  Yeah sure
I read the news today..oh boy
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Unders

Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:32 am

Quoting TPAnx (Reply 7):
I remember reading that in some states in which a deadline had been set for
requesting DNA testing

What happened to morals and values?

Quoting TPAnx (Reply 7):
prosecutors were destroying evidence.

Should be a crime consistent with the one they were trying to prove. Capital, even.

The prosecutors in the article I posted should be severely reprimanded, in my opinion. I would think that trying to block evidence like that would call for that.

[Edited 2006-10-16 02:48:07]
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:11 am

Quoting Redngold (Reply 1):
I'm in favor of wasting taxpayers' money if it has bearing on a life in prison or death sentence.

If they are so innocent then let them pay for the tests themselves! Put up or shut up.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
Nancy
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:54 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:45 am

"If they are so innocent then let them pay for the tests themselves! Put up or shut up."
So only the rich should get justice? Who cares if we lock innocent people up and let the guilty go? Do you honestly think that it is okay to imprison people or kill them because they can not pay to defend themselves? Everyone has a right to a defense. I really hope not. It has been proven that many of these people can't have committed the crimes they were convicted of. This has happened several times in Rochester and quite frankly it disgusts me, not in the least because it may mean that the guilty party is walking around.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:51 am

Quoting FSPilot747 (Thread starter):
In fact, in 2002, CNN had an article discussing the exoneration of 110 prisoners based on DNA alone.

Oh the horrors of the "liberal" media  sarcastic 

Quoting FSPilot747 (Thread starter):
Do they just want conviction, guilty or not?

Unfortunately, many do.

Quoting FSPilot747 (Thread starter):
Why would prosecutors be against proof that would exonerate someone they wrongly convicted?

Because it would hurt their "conviction rate"

Quoting FSPilot747 (Thread starter):
Do they not care if they have the wrong guy in prison or on death row?

Many don't

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 6):
Prosecutors are just like Defense Attorneys: They play to win and don't like to lose.

Actually, Defense lawyers have a type of Zen. It is called the Zen of losing.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 9):
If they are so innocent then let them pay for the tests themselves! Put up or shut up.

Riiiiiiight, so only the rich get justice (like Nancy said). The sad thing is, some people have indeed spent their life savings getting DNA testing done and then get no compensation when they are finally let go. Disgusting.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:00 am

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 6):
Quoting FSPilot747 (Thread starter):Why would prosecutors be against proof that would exonerate someone they wrongly convicted?
Along with what Redngold and AirCop offered, Prosecutors are just like Defense Attorneys: They play to win and don't like to lose. Notice the hurt looks on the faces of Prosecutors when they are interviewed following a trial in which the accused was found not guilty.

Yes, prosecutors don't like to lose. But I doubt most prosecutors would oppose a request for retesting just because they don't want to lose.

I support re-testing DNA, but I do understand why some prosecutors oppose the requests. For example, if you have overwhelming evidence against a defendant - a confession, the gun used in the crime with fingerprints of the defendant, other forensic evidence - how can you be sure the evidence hasn't been tampered with in the decades since it was collected?

And as redngold noted, there is pressure not to waste taxpayers funds.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11860
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:14 pm

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 9):
If they are so innocent then let them pay for the tests themselves! Put up or shut up.

Wow....I've read some screwed up crap on here before, but damn man!

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that most convicted and jailed felons do not exactly have bountiful reserves of money floating around, just waiting for the day when they can pay to have a DNA test.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that I don't have nearly enough money to fund a single test. So if I was falsely imprisoned tomorrow, well shit, I'd be outta luck!

I had no idea that we were SUCH a cutthroat society, that we're unwilling to help out someone that WE falsely imprisoned. Remember, juries are made up of everyday citizens.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
darrenthe747
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 4:40 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:30 pm

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 9):
If they are so innocent then let them pay for the tests themselves! Put up or shut up.

hopefully you can eat your own words some day while you are getting your ass pounded in some dank cell by bubba while saving up for your DNA test.
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:09 pm

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 9):

If they are so innocent then let them pay for the tests themselves! Put up or shut up.

Here's a great example of what happens when you combine ignorance with the inability to critically think.
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:13 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 12):
And as redngold noted, there is pressure not to waste taxpayers funds.

Do you know how much money it costs to keep someone in prison for life? A lot more expensive than a DNA test.
 
57AZ
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:27 pm

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 9):
If they are so innocent then let them pay for the tests themselves! Put up or shut up.

Many of the people who wind up in correctional institutions are indigent. In addition, some are mentally ill/incapacitated to the extent that they cannot reasonably be expected to represent their own legal interests. If states were to mandate retroactive DNA testing, they would likely be under legal obligation to pay for the tests for those inmates who are indigent.

One topic that does not come up often is this-what should happen if the DNA results create reasonable doubt of the inmate's guilt? Is the state obligated to compensate the person financially for the time that they were incarcerated? North Carolina did compensate a wrongfully imprisoned person who had served a decade for a rape that he did not commit. His insistance on DNA testing got his attorneys to have the evidence tested (this was when DNA testing first appeared in criminal justice applications). The DNA test results excluded him and on a hunch, police tested another criminal who had been picked up shortly after the man originally charged and convicted had been arrested. The second man was in jail on some other charge, thus allowing the police to obtain a DNA sample. His came back as a match and he confessed to the crime. Even though the original man had been identified by the victim, it was determined to be a case of mistaken identity as both men looked very similar.

In that case, the State of North Carolina paid the released man a tax-exempt payment of more than $140,000 (the exact amount was calculated on what he would have probably earned during the time that he was imprisoned). This was done at the insistance of the victim and a group of citizens who believed that the state should help him. In that case, the District Attorney's office did not oppose the test. After the mistake was found, their response was that while they had given the case their best effort, it obviously wasn't good enough.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:20 pm

Quoting FSPilot747 (Reply 16):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 12):
And as redngold noted, there is pressure not to waste taxpayers funds.

Do you know how much money it costs to keep someone in prison for life? A lot more expensive than a DNA test.

I agree, but the point is, most of these retests don't exonerate the defendants. Take the case of the now executed Roger Coleman in Virginia. After he was executed for his horrific crime, the then-poster boy of the "he's been falsely accused" crowd kept beating the drums for a retest. So one was finally ordered. And guess what? the test proved that he HAD been the murderer!

If the defendant wants to shell out the coin for a retest, I'm all for it.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:27 pm

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 9):
If they are so innocent then let them pay for the tests themselves! Put up or shut up.

That's bullshit. The gov't is prosecuting them, let the state foot the bill.

IMO, ever single person charged with a Captial crime should have their DNA tested before trial - and shown as part of the evidence presented at the trial. Sure would save a lot of headache in the long run - and eliminate them as subjects as the case warrants. It would also seal the deal in many cases. Sure would cut down on extraneous court time and costs.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:06 pm

Does anyone know what these DNA tests costs? Are we talking thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars per inmate?
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
FlyingTexan
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:30 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:23 pm

Quoting Pope (Reply 20):
Does anyone know what these DNA tests costs?

When I had a court-appointed paternity test in 2003, the cost was in the lower thousands . I forget the exact cost, but was told by the State of TX I'd be liable for it if I tested positive (I didn't). The court didn't take too kind to my suggestion the whore I was linked up with should pay the cost. After 4 different paternity tests with 4 different people, the whore found the father.

Of course, a criminal DNA test probably costs many times more.
"Wouldn't your boss like to fly home nonstop at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon?" -Airline Exec to Congressional Staffer
 
darrenthe747
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 4:40 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:27 am

And another reason why we want to know if we are convicting apotentially innocent person is that the real killer/rapist is stillw alking around on the streets.
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:19 am

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 21):
When I had a court-appointed paternity test in 2003, the cost was in the lower thousands.

Let's say that the necessary tests are 10x or even 20x this - call it $40,000. I can't believe the state would be willing to send an innocent man to death over $40,000, particularly when it costs the state about that much to incarcerate them for a year on death row.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:34 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 12):
And as redngold noted, there is pressure not to waste taxpayers funds.

If a DNA test is not a waste in a future criminal trial, it sure isn't a waste in exonerating someone who has wrongly sat in prison.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):
If the defendant wants to shell out the coin for a retest, I'm all for it.

Read this:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 19):
That's bullshit. The gov't is prosecuting them, let the state foot the bill.

Exactly. Further, if a DNA test was not available, they should not have to foot the bill if they have been sitting in jail, not earning money.

Quoting Pope (Reply 20):
Does anyone know what these DNA tests costs? Are we talking thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars per inmate?

Thousands, but it shouldn't matter

Quoting Pope (Reply 23):
I can't believe the state would be willing to send an innocent man to death over $40,000

They can and do all the time.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:01 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 12):
And as redngold noted, there is pressure not to waste taxpayers funds.

If a DNA test is not a waste in a future criminal trial, it sure isn't a waste in exonerating someone who has wrongly sat in prison.

You apparently have a problem with reading comprehension today.

I said RETEST, not original test.

I do believe it is indeed the state's responsibility to perform - and pay for - a DNA test in preparation for a trial, if they intend to use it at trial. If they do not, the defendant is free to perform his own DNA testing and submit the evidence.

When it comes to a test after conviction, where the government did not rely on or use the DNA sample to get a conviction, the defendant should pay in the case of an original test, and in the case of a retest, where the government paid to have the first test performed, only if the defendant can make a prima facie case that the original test was faulty.

Sorry, but where the defendant is advancing a new argument - in this case, that DNA will exonerate him/her - why should the state be required to foot the bill?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):
If the defendant wants to shell out the coin for a retest, I'm all for it.

Read this:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 19):
That's bullshit. The gov't is prosecuting them, let the state foot the bill.

Exactly. Further, if a DNA test was not available, they should not have to foot the bill if they have been sitting in jail, not earning money.

See my statement above regarding reading comprehension. Thanks!
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11860
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:10 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 25):
When it comes to a test after conviction, where the government did not rely on or use the DNA sample to get a conviction, the defendant should pay in the case of an original test,

So - just to clarify - you're saying that for people who are already in jail, if there was no DNA test done before, during, or after the trial, that the prisoner should have to pay to have one done?

Seems kind of non-sensical...

~Vik
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:27 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 19):



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 19):
IMO, ever single person charged with a Captial crime should have their DNA tested before trial - and shown as part of the evidence presented at the trial. Sure would save a lot of headache in the long run - and eliminate them as subjects as the case warrants. It would also seal the deal in many cases. Sure would cut down on extraneous court time and costs.

You have GOT to stop making so much sense....  Wink
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:31 am

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 26):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 25):
When it comes to a test after conviction, where the government did not rely on or use the DNA sample to get a conviction, the defendant should pay in the case of an original test,

So - just to clarify - you're saying that for people who are already in jail, if there was no DNA test done before, during, or after the trial, that the prisoner should have to pay to have one done?

If the prisoner was incarcerated based in part on evidence derived from a DNA that was used against him at trial, the state should have paid for that original test.

If the prisoner was incarcerated based in part on evidence derived from a DNA that was used against him at trial, and the state correctly paid for that original test, the defendant should pay for a retest, unless he/she can establish a prima facie case that the original test was invalid.

If the prisoner was incarcerated from a conviction obtained without reliance on DNA evidence, but there was material suitable for DNA testing and made available for the defense to perform such a test to be used in his/her defense, and the defense declined the opportunity to perform the test before trial, if they want to run the test after conviction, it should be on their dime.

If the prisoner was incarcerated based without reliance on DNA evidence because DNA testing wasn't available at the time of the trial, I would support a retest at government expense only where the government used other forensic/scientific evidence to obtain the conviction, on the premise that the prosecutor would have likely used a DNA test had it been available.

IOW, if the conviction was obtained by confession and eyewitness testimony, no, I wouldn't have the state pay.

Put it this way. Take the case of Jack Ruby. Dozens of people saw him shoot Lee Harvey Oswald. I believe he even confessed. If he hadn't died of cancer and was still alive, would you really consider making the state pay for a DNA test?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Unders

Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:03 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 28):

Put it this way. Take the case of Jack Ruby. Dozens of people saw him shoot Lee Harvey Oswald. I believe he even confessed. If he hadn't died of cancer and was still alive, would you really consider making the state pay for a DNA test?

If he confessed to the crime, chances are he wouldn't have wanted a DNA test. There is a good chance that if a defendant is aware of the possibility of a DNA test and then really asks to have one because he knows he didn't commit a crime, the state should bend over backwards to get the test done.

Furthermore, take the recent case with JonBenet Ramsey (not this case again), and Mark Karr. Weirdo confessed, didn't commit. We don't want to arrest the wrong people. We want to get the murderers off the streets. DNA is scientific. Everything else is eyewitness testimony (which is subject to misinformation effects) and evidence that may or may not be directly related to the victim. DNA will put them at the crime scene. DNA evidence can prove who raped somebody.

That a prosecutor would be against such testing because of his/her pride makes me sick, and I think it's best that the state revoke the bar cards of these DAs in order not only to keep innocents out of jail and out of death row, but to actually be able to apprehend the right people. This is, as someone stated earlier, obstruction of justice. I can't see how it couldn't be.
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:11 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 25):
I do believe it is indeed the state's responsibility to perform - and pay for - a DNA test in preparation for a trial, if they intend to use it at trial. If they do not, the defendant is free to perform his own DNA testing and submit the evidence.

When it comes to a test after conviction, where the government did not rely on or use the DNA sample to get a conviction, the defendant should pay in the case of an original test, and in the case of a retest, where the government paid to have the first test performed, only if the defendant can make a prima facie case that the original test was faulty.

Sorry, but where the defendant is advancing a new argument - in this case, that DNA will exonerate him/her - why should the state be required to foot the bill?

This is what I was saying though it seems I failed in what I was trying to get accross. Also my point is that any criminal you talk to in jail is most likely going to tell you they were framed, where do we draw the line on paying for and running all these DNA tests? There has to be a happy medium on this subject!
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:43 am

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 30):
Also my point is that any criminal you talk to in jail is most likely going to tell you they were framed, where do we draw the line on paying for and running all these DNA tests? There has to be a happy medium on this subject!

If a suspect KNOWS he is guilty, he's not going to ask for a DNA test (if he does, it might be to postpone a death sentence), but it wouldn't really help him/her.

The happy medium is exhausting all forms of evidence (DNA is a big one, buddy) before we incarcerate or murder somebody who did nothing wrong.

BTW, a DNA test is a LOT cheaper than what it costs to keep someone incarcerated.

You failed in getting your point across because you're not using your brain.
 
greasespot
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:45 am

DNA testing, when present should be as automatic as finger printing.
I know i know,,,,nuff said

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:27 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 25):
I said RETEST, not original test.

If it was a test taken under tainted conditions, then it is the state's fault and they should pay

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 25):
the defendant should pay in the case of an original test

And if they have no money or had just enough to pay for a lawyer but not enough to pay for a DNA screening?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 25):
why should the state be required to foot the bill?

Because it is their burden and if they have convicted someone who can't afford it, then it is the state's responsibility to pay.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:43 am

Quoting FSPilot747 (Reply 29):
That a prosecutor would be against such testing because of his/her pride makes me sick, and I think it's best that the state revoke the bar cards of these DAs in order not only to keep innocents out of jail and out of death row, but to actually be able to apprehend the right people. This is, as someone stated earlier, obstruction of justice. I can't see how it couldn't be.

Sad to say, some prosecutors aren't angels. Given that the starting salary for ADA in some localities is pitifully low, it's not surprising that a few bad apples are found in the barrel.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 33):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 25):I said RETEST, not original test.
If it was a test taken under tainted conditions, then it is the state's fault and they should pay

You do have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you? What part of the "defendant should pay for a retest, unless he/she can establish a prima facie case that the original test was invalid" do you not understand?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 33):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 25):the defendant should pay in the case of an original test
And if they have no money or had just enough to pay for a lawyer but not enough to pay for a DNA screening?

Wow. talk about taking a quote out of context. Here is the entire quote: "When it comes to a test after conviction, where the government did not rely on or use the DNA sample to get a conviction, the defendant should pay in the case of an original test, and in the case of a retest, where the government paid to have the first test performed, only if the defendant can make a prima facie case that the original test was faulty."

Why should the state be required to pay for a DNA test when it didn't use DNA evidence to obtain the conviction?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 33):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 25):why should the state be required to foot the bill?
Because it is their burden and if they have convicted someone who can't afford it, then it is the state's responsibility to pay.

Boy, I sure hope you learn to read everything by the time you graduate.

Here is the entire quote: "Sorry, but where the defendant is advancing a new argument - in this case, that DNA will exonerate him/her - why should the state be required to foot the bill?"

Again - if the state didn't use DNA evidence to obtain the conviction, why should the state be required to pay for an after the fact DNA test?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Nancy
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:54 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:01 am

The state should pay for a DNA if it might exonerate someone because we shouldn't put innocent people in jail or kill them. The burden of proof is on the state. If there is evidence it should be examined. We need to protect innocent people not only from the criminals who may still be out there, but also from a legal system and other citizens who are apparently more worried about expediency and money than justice.
 
fumanchewd
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:43 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:03 am

If one innocent person is killed on death row then the entire state is guilty for allowing it to happen. Executions will always kill innocent people on occaision and are therefore atrocious.
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey...
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:09 am

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 36):
Executions will always kill innocent people on occaision and are therefore atrocious.

Just like Roger Coleman, right?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:58 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 34):
What part of the "defendant should pay for a retest, unless he/she can establish a prima facie case that the original test was invalid" do you not understand?

Because that DNA retest may be exactly what they need to determine the prima facie case.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 34):

Why should the state be required to pay for a DNA test when it didn't use DNA evidence to obtain the conviction?

Because there are thousands who have been convicted on bad evidence where DNA was unavailable or unused.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 34):
Boy, I sure hope you learn to read everything by the time you graduate.

Boy, I am glad that not every federal prosecutor (if you really are one) cares so little about justice and civil rights as you do.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 34):
Again - if the state didn't use DNA evidence to obtain the conviction, why should the state be required to pay for an after the fact DNA test?

Because it is part of their burden and if it is raised as a defense after the fact, it throws their case into reasonable doubt.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
57AZ
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:00 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 28):
If the prisoner was incarcerated based in part on evidence derived from a DNA that was used against him at trial, and the state correctly paid for that original test, the defendant should pay for a retest, unless he/she can establish a prima facie case that the original test was invalid.

In the situation where a defendant can establish a prima facie case that the original test was flawed/invalid, you are suggesting that the defendant/defense should pay for the retest if the defendant is not indigent and thus possibly eligible for the state to assume the cost (if the statutes allow)? That I would fully agree with.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 28):
If the prisoner was incarcerated based without reliance on DNA evidence because DNA testing wasn't available at the time of the trial, I would support a retest at government expense only where the government used other forensic/scientific evidence to obtain the conviction, on the premise that the prosecutor would have likely used a DNA test had it been available.

This I certainly agree with. Blood type testing was the predominant standard test until science refined DNA analysis. Up until the late 1980s or mid 1990s (depending on your location) it was entirely possible to get a conviction using blood typing as a base piece of evidence. The advance in DNA analysis and the accessibility to DNA testing has essentially eliminated the usability of blood typing as a principal form of evidence. There have been a number of cases where blood typing was used as evidence for convictions and the defendants were later exonerated when the surviving samples were DNA tested with negative results. Of course, the performance of such a post conviction test is dependant on the retention of evidence. For older cases, that can be problematic as evidence may have been lost or destroyed (usually under applicable statutes). Still there are old cases that beat the odds and evidence that was thought to have been lost or destroyed turns up in such condition that a reliable test can be performed.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:54 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 34):

Why should the state be required to pay for a DNA test when it didn't use DNA evidence to obtain the conviction?

Because there are thousands who have been convicted on bad evidence where DNA was unavailable or unused.

 rotfl  oh, the old "convicted on bad evidence" mantra. Like Roger Coleman?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 34):
Boy, I sure hope you learn to read everything by the time you graduate.

Boy, I am glad that not every federal prosecutor (if you really are one) cares so little about justice and civil rights as you do.

I really am a federal prosecutor. Every April 15th, when you file your tax return, I hope you think of how you are paying my salary when you sign the 1040.  Smile

I've never sent an innocent person to jail. When I was a defense counsel, I prevented innocent people from going to jail. So yes, I know all about justice. Maybe once you've graduated and passed the bar - assuming you do, of course - and actually practiced law like I have for the last 22 years, perhaps you'll have a bit more credibility than you do now.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 34):
Again - if the state didn't use DNA evidence to obtain the conviction, why should the state be required to pay for an after the fact DNA test?

Because it is part of their burden and if it is raised as a defense after the fact, it throws their case into reasonable doubt.

In addition to learning how to read before you graduate, I hope you also learn some law. It will be of great assistance when you actually walk into the courtroom and try a case.

Here are some relevant excerpts from an actual case (Harvey v. Horan
285 F.3d 298, C.A.4,2002). You know, those things you find in Westlaw, Lexis, or the library.

Quote:
Our system however does not allow any person to press a claim of innocence at any time, at any place, and in any manner. The assertion of innocence, just as the assertion of any right, is intertwined with orderly process. It matters, for example, that a Virginia prisoner has sought here to bypass Virginia's system of criminal justice altogether, and proceed directly into federal court under § 1983. Such disregard of process is an anomaly in an area where criminal defendants, above all, rely on proper process to protect their rights. What Alexander Bickel termed "the morality of process" in the political system has application to criminal justice as well. Alexander M. Bickel, The Morality of Consent 123 (1975). Shorn of process, neither the innocent nor the public upon whom offenders prey will have any assurance of justice.......This is not to say that the federal courts are uncharitable with respect to claims of innocence. For example, Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. And the seminal case of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), allows a state prisoner to press a claim of innocence in federal court on the ground that "the evidence in support of his state conviction cannot be fairly characterized as sufficient to have led a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." 443 U.S. at 321, 99 S.Ct. 2781. See also Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993) (stating that " 'actual innocence' is not itself a constitutional claim," but that it can serve as a "gateway" through which a habeas petitioner can "have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits").......In 2001 alone, seventeen states passed laws "to provide convicted criminals with improved access to DNA testing." Always an eye for an eye?, The Economist, Jan. 5, 2002, at 26-27. State legislatures have set detailed ground rules for these types of actions, answering the numerous questions discussed above that post-conviction DNA testing raises. The legislatures have spelled out not only the circumstances in which a motion for additional DNA testing can be made, but also where such motions must be brought. They also have identified the parameters that control whether additional testing will be made available, whether a decision to grant or deny testing is appealable, who must bear the cost of the testing, and what relief is available if the results are favorable to the petitioner. See, e.g., N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 440.30 (McKinney Supp. 2001); Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 925.11, 943.3251 (West Supp. 2001); Cal.Penal Code § 1405 (West Supp. 2002)........The statutes reveal that there are many different approaches to resolving these issues. Within the Fourth Circuit alone, there is substantial variation in the approaches taken by Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina, which have already enacted post-conviction DNA testing provisions. For example, the Virginia statute applies to people convicted of a felony, does not specify who pays for the DNA testing, and states that the testing will be performed by the Virginia Division of Forensic Science. See Va.Code Ann. § 19.2-327.1. In contrast, the Maryland statute applies only to people convicted of certain crimes, specifies that the petitioner shall pay the costs of the testing unless the results are favorable (in which case the state pays), and allows the judge reviewing the petition to select a laboratory for the testing from a *303 list of accredited labs. See Md.Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 8-201 (Michie 2001). In further contrast, the North Carolina statute applies to any criminal defendant, requires the defendant to pay the cost of the DNA testing unless he is indigent (in which case the state bears the cost), and does not indicate which lab will conduct the testing. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-269.......To constitutionalize this area, as the separate opinion would, in the face of all this legislative activity and variation is to evince nothing less than a loss of faith in democracy. It is to believe that democratic processes are incapable of rising to the challenge, and that federal courts must do the governing for us. In the end, this will deaden the lifeforce of democracy. It will cause legislatures across our nation to simply surrender the impulse to innovate based on the assumption that the federal courts are prepared to step in at any time. It will encourage elected officials to sit on their hands and turn over their responsibilities to federal judges. To be sure, the displacement of elected officials by judicial authority always pleases some of the people some of the time. But with activism, what goes around comes around. Today's merriment becomes tomorrow's mourning.



Quoting 57AZ (Reply 39):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 28):
If the prisoner was incarcerated based in part on evidence derived from a DNA that was used against him at trial, and the state correctly paid for that original test, the defendant should pay for a retest, unless he/she can establish a prima facie case that the original test was invalid.


In the situation where a defendant can establish a prima facie case that the original test was flawed/invalid, you are suggesting that the defendant/defense should pay for the retest if the defendant is not indigent and thus possibly eligible for the state to assume the cost (if the statutes allow)? That I would fully agree with.

Actually, if the original test was flawed, or even suspect, I'd make the state pay for the retest, regardless of the defendant's ability to pay.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12427
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:50 am

One problem is that many Prosecutors, as well as many trial judges in the the USA are ELECTED positions, not appointments. Even where appointments, being a prosecutor can be a stepping stone to other and higher elected positions, judgeships and so on. Prosecutors are thus most likely to take a very strong put away all the criminals attitude to the public. Any loss is a negative on the record, especially serious, high public profile, or popular causes cases like rape, child abuse and so on so there may be attempts to do what it takes to win. Also, if a convicted defendant is suggested to be not guilty by a negative DNA test, then the prosecutor may have to retrial a case, without the other evidence, witnesses dead or unreliable due to time.
Perhaps what is needed is Federal Statute or US Supreme Court decision that per the Constitution one is entitled to have a DNA test done if sufficient questions are raised of guilt and sufficient DNA materials for matching are available.
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Unders

Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:40 am

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 41):
Perhaps what is needed is Federal Statute or US Supreme Court decision that per the Constitution one is entitled to have a DNA test done if sufficient questions are raised of guilt and sufficient DNA materials for matching are available.

One question might be, who would make the determination as to whether or not a sufficient amount of questionable guilt and or testable materials is present to warrant a DNA test on the government's dime? The obvious answer, I suppose, would be the judicial system. That being the case, why not allow the court to determine the need and feasibility for DNA testing rather than make it an across the board "right" of the person convicted?
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:47 pm

The story reads that one of the killers made a confession and handed a knife over that he said had been used to commit the murder so my questions are,

1. Was the woman's blood on the knife?

2. Were the convicts fingerprints found at the scene?

3. Could the convicts account for their whereabouts at the time of the crime?

4. Was any of the woman's personal property recovered at the convicts
homes?

5. Is there any other explanation for the semen, boyfriend, one night stand?

6. Since there was only one sample, evidently by the way the story reads, a
pretty tiny one, how do we know that a. the test wasn't wrong or b. that
a third person wasn't involved?

7. What other evidence did the police and prosecutor have to convict these
two or was it just the one man's confession?

It just seems to me that one test, on a twenty year old evidence, is pretty slim justification for voiding two sentences.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:04 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 43):

7. What other evidence did the police and prosecutor have to convict these
two or was it just the one man's confession?

Interesting how the MSNBC site uses the word "Exonerates" yet this article in the Washington Post merely states the DNA test results "Casts Doubt" on the two convictions. From that article: "The men were convicted in 1988 during separate trials in which relatively weak physical evidence was supported by a last-minute confession by Thompson. He later recanted, and both men now say they were innocent bystanders who came under suspicion after telling a series of lies that began as an attempt to cash in on police reward money". However, from the same article: ""There was a lot of compelling evidence that was presented," said Margaret Burns, a spokeswoman for the office. Jurors "found that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only did the jury find that, the appeals process confirmed that several times."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../AR2006100201379.html?nav=hcmodule

In reading other articles, it sounds like it's the defense atty's who are using the word "exonerate" and, at this point, the prosecution is undecided on what their next move will be, should a defense motion for new trials be granted.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:30 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
(Harvey v. Horan
285 F.3d 298, C.A.4,2002).

Hmmm, perhaps you should check your bluebook and relearn how to cite a case? Further, the 4th circuit has already been heavily criticized for its findings in Harvey I and II, including in Osborne v. DA's Office, 423 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2005), particularly because they essentially ignore or rewrite parts of Heck in their self-serving political rant on "Judicial activism".

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
oh, the old "convicted on bad evidence" mantra. Like Roger Coleman?

Like Herman Atkins. Like Scott Fappiano.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
Maybe once you've graduated and passed the bar - assuming you do, of course

Riiiight. Don't worry about me passing a bar. Besides, I already have a law license

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
It will be of great assistance when you actually walk into the courtroom and try a case.

I know the law and I have been in the courtroom plenty. Further, one of your colleagues has called me one of the most natural born trial lawyers he has ever met.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
I've never sent an innocent person to jail.

I am sure you think that.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:03 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
Hmmm, perhaps you should check your bluebook and relearn how to cite a case? Further, the 4th circuit has already been heavily criticized for its findings in Harvey I and II, including in Osborne v. DA's Office, 423 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2005), particularly because they essentially ignore or rewrite parts of Heck in their self-serving political rant on "Judicial activism".

LOL, please direct your criticism to Westlaw. I copied their cite verbatim.

Regardless of what you think of the 4th Circuit, their ruling hasn't been overturned, has it?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
It will be of great assistance when you actually walk into the courtroom and try a case.

I know the law and I have been in the courtroom plenty. Further, one of your colleagues has called me one of the most natural born trial lawyers he has ever met.

You know the law?  rotfl  I can't begin to count all the mistakes you've made on Anet when you try to pass yourself off as a lawyer.

Have you ever tried a case in a U.S. courtroom? Sitting in the courtroom watching doesn't count. I don't care if your friends consider you to be the next coming of F Lee Bailey, until you've actually walked the walk, you're just another arrogant wannabee who talks a good game, but has no idea if he or she can deliver.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
I've never sent an innocent person to jail.

I am sure you think that.

I know it. What's more, when I was a defense counsel, only one of my clients was ever "convicted," and that was just an administrative decision by a military retention board.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Unders

Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:53 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
I've never sent an innocent person to jail. When I was a defense counsel, I prevented innocent people from going to jail. So yes, I know all about justice.

You say you've practiced law for 22 years yet you make sweeping statements like these? Having been in law enforcement for 20+ years, I find it very difficult, if not impossible to believe that in those 22 years you were never party to an innocent person being wrongfully convicted or a guilty person being set free. What do you want to bet that the prosecutor in this case once made the same arrogant declaration as you just made?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_200408/ai_n9454260

Godschalk, 26, was convicted of raping two women and was sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison. Godschalk requested DNA testing of samples from the crime scene after serving 11 years of the sentence, but his request was denied. After Godschalk had served 15 years of the sentence, a federal court ordered the DNA testing, which proved that Godschalk was not the rapist.

Or how about the prosecutor in this case?

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=160972

Seven months after fearful Marlboro officials settled a wrongful rape conviction for $2 million, a federal judge ruled the man left to fester in prison for a decade deserves $13.6 million.

Oh, and how about this case?

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1795

Wrongfully Convicted Man Freed
August 15, 2006
Wendy McElroy
iFeminists.com

"Uncle Clarence killed Grandma."

That sentence spoken in 1998 by six-year-old Brooke Sutton initiated a seven-year nightmare for Inmate Number A375856, who was convicted of murder and child rape. The nightmare ended on Dec. 15, 2005 when the State of Ohio released Clarence Elkins and agreed to pay him more than $1 million for wrongful imprisonment.


Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
I've never sent an innocent person to jail.

Please, get over yourself.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:27 am

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 47):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
I've never sent an innocent person to jail. When I was a defense counsel, I prevented innocent people from going to jail. So yes, I know all about justice.

You say you've practiced law for 22 years yet you make sweeping statements like these? Having been in law enforcement for 20+ years, I find it very difficult, if not impossible to believe that in those 22 years you were never party to an innocent person being wrongfully convicted or a guilty person being set free. What do you want to bet that the prosecutor in this case once made the same arrogant declaration as you just made?

I can't and won't speak for the actions of other prosecutors. All I can do is account for my own actions. And I know that in the cases I've prosecuted, I've never sent an innocent person to jail. Yes, I am personally convinced that we made no mistakes. Is it possible we did? Perhaps, but none of my cases has ever been overturned on appeal.

Likewise, as an appellate counsel for the government, my record in the Court of Appeals is 9-1. The one case I lost, I deserved to lose, because the facts sucked, and the guy should have never been found guilty in the first place.

And when I was on the defense side, yes, I "lost" cases, but in all but one case, I was able to secure a decent sentence for my client.

And when I was a military judge, I was likewise never overturned by CMR or CAAF because I made damn sure not to make any mistakes. After one trial, I was taken to task for my "pro-defense" rulings by our Chief Trial Judge. Months later, when CAAF reversed another judge for ruling in the manner I had refused to, I did get an apology.

Yes, innocent people have been sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit. But I have never knowingly been a participant in any case where that was the result, and if I had ever discovered a error that resulted in someone being wrongly convicted, I would do my best to reverse the outcome.

You can call the above being "full of myself," but I call it being a careful prosecutor, defense counsel, and judge.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Would A Prosecutor Do This? I Don't Understand

Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:45 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 46):
LOL, please direct your criticism to Westlaw. I copied their cite verbatim.

I don't care that you got it from Westlaw, and why are you spending federal tax dollars to try and make a point on something that may be bad law on an aviation website? My criticism was pointed toward that irresponsible judge as well as you.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 46):
Regardless of what you think of the 4th Circuit, their ruling hasn't been overturned, has it?

Neither has the 9th

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 46):
I don't care if your friends consider you to be the next coming of F Lee Bailey

Your friend, not mine, though I am guessing he is a far better lawyer than you.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 46):
I know it. What's more, when I was a defense counsel, only one of my clients was ever "convicted," and that was just an administrative decision by a military retention board.

Yeah, that explains your disdain for the constitution. It doesn't apply in the military.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests