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.
Thank you for your insight, but I agree with the Supreme Court and here is why..
First, I'll stipulate that prosecutors look the other way, hide evidence, and prosecute the innocent because they view everyone as guilty..
But isnt the question here, proving the prosecutor KNEW the individual was innocent? We live in an innocent until proven society, (or so we like to say we do), and the prosecutor should be held to the same standards we expect they hold up to us. The fact that some of them dont live up to that standard, doesnt mean we should just retaliate on the prosecutor in question.
Maybe a jury should determine what the prosecutor "knew".
Thank you for your insight, but I agree with the Supreme Court and here is why..
First, I'll stipulate that prosecutors look the other way, hide evidence, and prosecute the innocent because they view everyone as guilty..
But isnt the question here, proving the prosecutor KNEW the individual was innocent? We live in an innocent until proven society, (or so we like to say we do), and the prosecutor should be held to the same standards we expect they hold up to us. The fact that some of them dont live up to that standard, doesnt mean we should just retaliate on the prosecutor in question.
Why not? If you're saying that he has a standard to uphold, and he refuses to live up to it, why shouldn't we come down on him/her?
Thank you for your insight, but I agree with the Supreme Court and here is why..
First, I'll stipulate that prosecutors look the other way, hide evidence, and prosecute the innocent because they view everyone as guilty..
But isnt the question here, proving the prosecutor KNEW the individual was innocent? We live in an innocent until proven society, (or so we like to say we do), and the prosecutor should be held to the same standards we expect they hold up to us. The fact that some of them dont live up to that standard, doesnt mean we should just retaliate on the prosecutor in question.
Your question isn't in doubt. The prosecutors had the exculpatory evidence. They knew the individual was not guilty of the crime he was accused of. They had blood residue from the perpetrator of the crime, and the accused had a completely different bloodtype. It's exculpatory evidence. They had it. They hid it. Five prosecuting attorneys hid evidence. Even the majority opinion acknowledges this.
No wonder the american people have so much trust in the Law. The Law has always favored the persecuters and officialdom. This nonsense, not economics, is the rot that will destroy our Republic.
Your question isn't in doubt. The prosecutors had the exculpatory evidence. They knew the individual was not guilty of the crime he was accused of. They had blood residue from the perpetrator of the crime, and the accused had a completely different bloodtype. It's exculpatory evidence. They had it. They hid it. Five prosecuting attorneys hid evidence. Even the majority opinion acknowledges this.
The Supreme Court's decision was entirely unconstitutional.
Your question isn't in doubt. The prosecutors had the exculpatory evidence. They knew the individual was not guilty of the crime he was accused of. They had blood residue from the perpetrator of the crime, and the accused had a completely different bloodtype. It's exculpatory evidence. They had it. They hid it. Five prosecuting attorneys hid evidence. Even the majority opinion acknowledges this.
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..
The Supreme Court's decision was entirely unconstitutional.
It's just another attack on the Constitution.
I don't think it was Unconstitutional. It's a matter of opinion. I think the majority opinion got it wrong. I think the minority opinions got it right. I also wonder if this view of "pattern" will have an influence on how the court rules on the Wal-Mart sex discrimination case. I've been trying to find "patterns" in the Court's rulings, but there is a lack of consistency to the court as a whole which is puzzling.
I don't think it was Unconstitutional. It's a matter of opinion. I think the majority opinion got it wrong. I think the minority opinions got it right. I also wonder if this view of "pattern" will have an influence on how the court rules on the Wal-Mart sex discrimination case. I've been trying to find "patterns" in the Court's rulings, but there is a lack of consistency to the court as a whole which is puzzling.
Even Supreme Court justices are not above the law.
Obviously, the punk prosecutors are not.
They all need to be prosecuted.
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.
