Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The court ruled against a man who'd been sentenced to death and incarcerated for fourteen years, when the prosecution KNEW he was innocent and had the evidence to show that he was innocent. They ruled for the district attorney on the case, because the case rested on whether the district attorney was deliberately lax in training prosecutors about their responsibility to turn over exonerating evidence to the defense. Five different prosecutors were involved in the case. The Supreme Court ruled for the district attorney because they didn't feel that one case proved a pattern to support the contention that the district attorney wasn't adequately training prosecutors. But as Ginsberg points out in her dissent, which she read from the bench, five different attorneys are the pattern in this case.
You guys are missing some key points to the case. First the case in which the defendant served those 14 years is not the same case where the prosecution breached their duty in not presenting the blood evidence.
The defendant allegedly committed a murder and was on trial for that murder. He decided not to testify in his trial because of a prior robbery conviction. That robbery conviction is the case where the prosecutor violated the Brady act (not turning over the evidence). The defendant was convicted for that murder, and that was the reason he was serving 14 years in jail.
Which I am pointing out because you and others are acting as if the guy was serving 14 years in jail for persecutory misconduct, or for something he had not done. The defendant was convicted of murder in the case separate from the case where the prosecutor violated ethics. So again the defendant wasn't exactly innocent.
Now onto the SCOTUS verdict, I agree that it was not a pattern. It could've been 100 lawyers on that one case that violated ethics (or the law). But again thats only 1 case. If it is not multiple cases (which his lawyers could not prove) than it is not pattern. If it is not pattern you cannot argue or sue for improper training.
You guys are missing some key points to the case. First the case in which the defendant served those 14 years is not the same case where the prosecution breached their duty in not presenting the blood evidence.
The defendant allegedly committed a murder and was on trial for that murder. He decided not to testify in his trial because of a prior robbery conviction. That robbery conviction is the case where the prosecutor violated the Brady act (not turning over the evidence). The defendant was convicted for that murder, and that was the reason he was serving 14 years in jail.
Now onto the SCOTUS verdict, I agree that it was not a pattern. It could've been 100 lawyers ont hat one case that violated ethics. BUt again thats only 1 case. If it is not multiple cases (which his lawyers could not prove) than it is not pattern. If it is not pattern you cannot argue or sue for improper training.
It wasn't incompetence, it was murder for career gain.
You wanna plea down to attempted negligent homicide?
Did they hide it, or did they not look at it? The question is, how do you prove they KNEW? The prosecutors would simply deny looking at it..
Thats the problem here.. Should they have known.. yep.. could they have know.. yep again, but DID they?
There was a law passed by Congress in 1997 to help combat prosecutor abuse, but you would have to look at what the law was at the time the man was convicted..
I think that they KNEW has been established. That they KNEW was not the question before the court, nor was it the crux of the case that the Supreme Court issued its decision on. The prosecutors committed prosecutorial misconduct. It's an ethical violation, and they can face censure from the bar for such violations. But the case for damages is a civil case, and the district attorney is held responsible for the actions of his subordinates in such cases. The district attorney's defense was not that his prosecutors acted in good faith, the district attorney's defense was that he did maintain ethical standards in his office, and that these five were rogue attorneys misbehaving to obtain a conviction. The plaintiff's case was that the district attorney is responsible because he did not train and educate his subordinates in the ethical standards, and did nothing to ensure that those ethical standards were upheld by his office and that is why they railroaded this man onto death row.
The lower courts all agreed with the plaintiff. Because the system was so adversarial, the lower courts felt that the district attorney encouraged a level of aggression in prosecutions that led to prosecutorial misconduct as is exemplified by this case.
SCOTUS overturned the lower courts because they didn't feel that a single case established a pattern of behavior. The minority opinion felt that with five prosecuting attorneys having been involved, having knowledge of the exculpatory evidence, that those five attorneys supported the contention of a pattern.
And I agree with Ginsberg. Back when I did that sort of thing I saw with my own eyes the attitude many prosecutors had - that everyone was really guilty. I saw them ignore exonerating evidence, or worse, they hid it from the other side.
I was often criticized for being "too objective" and refusing to prosecute people who I thought didn't have enough evidence against them. So I quit.
People who think this sort of thing doesn't happen have probably never spent much time in court.
Your post reminds me of that movie "The fighter" Just making a comment on your post I believe many cases have been overturned since DNA has been allowed. Good for you for standing up for principles. I could not imagine going to prison the rest of my life, knowing I did not do the crime. Could you even image the pain?
Maybe a jury should determine what the prosecutor "knew".
A jury in a criminal trial.
That I'd love to see! Charge them with concealing evidence, hindering the defense, conspiracy, fraud upon the court and contempt of court just to start.
That I'd love to see! Charge them with concealing evidence, hindering the defense, conspiracy, fraud upon the court and contempt of court just to start.
The court ruled against a man who'd been sentenced to death and incarcerated for fourteen years, when the prosecution KNEW he was innocent and had the evidence to show that he was innocent. They ruled for the district attorney on the case, because the case rested on whether the district attorney was deliberately lax in training prosecutors about their responsibility to turn over exonerating evidence to the defense. Five different prosecutors were involved in the case. The Supreme Court ruled for the district attorney because they didn't feel that one case proved a pattern to support the contention that the district attorney wasn't adequately training prosecutors. But as Ginsberg points out in her dissent, which she read from the bench, five different attorneys are the pattern in this case.
Do you have to rob a bank 10 times in order to get convicted of the first robbery? Everyone gets off if the prosecution can't prove a pattern?
The prosecutors weren't adequately trained?
Weasel words of irrelevance.
Actually, they were more than adequately trained, trained to break the law, that is!
^ this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
