Supreme Court ruling

[Charles RB]

Wait, they actually ruled convicts can't use DNA evidence to prove innocence? Really?

[Steven Grant]

Wait, they actually ruled convicts can't use DNA evidence to prove innocence? Really?

Not exactly. They ruled that if DNA evidence is discovered exonerating them of a crime, nobody has any obligation to tell them about it. The extrapolation of this is that courts aren't necessarily obligated to take such evidence into consideration when deciding whether to grant them a new trial, though the ruling doesn't specifically say that. What it does sort of enshrine is what a lot of DAs have been praying for, that DNA (and presumably other) evidence is more or less irrelevant, once a conviction has been achieved.

- Grant

[Village Idiot]

What it does sort of enshrine is what a lot of DAs have been praying for, that DNA (and presumably other) evidence is more or less irrelevant, once a conviction has been achieved.- Grant

Yeah, because we have to keep them there criminals in prison...even if they are innocent.

Damn circular reasoning.

[Steven Grant]

Yeah, because we have to keep them there criminals in prison...even if they are innocent.

Damn circular reasoning.

Well, we don't want to further overburden the system, do we? If we were to allow every innocent person rotting in prison a new trial just because new evidence is found exonerating them, we wouldn't have time left to wrongly convict anyone else, would we? It stands to reason.

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

On the DVD extra's for Clint Eastwoods 'True Crime' is the story of/interview with a journalist who proved a man's innocence by actually putting in the leg work and tracing a paper trail/hunting down witnesses to prove a guy innocent - which he did - and when he, and a detective who'd helped him out, presented the evidence to the DA and a police official, they rang the Governor who was ready to give the guy a pardon.
The journalist had to point out 'you can't just pardon him, he was never guilty in the first place'.

Isn't it brilliant how hard they'll chase someone to lock them up, but how slow they are to let the wrong guy out?
You'd think the fact that the person who did it is walking free would stir people to action - not make them bitch about messing with their stats.

[bartl]

The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Supreme Court decision was that recovery of DNA evidence is a matter for state governments, NOT the federal government, at least for those convicted of state crimes.

For those who are not from the United States, please note that individual states were originally closer to independent nations than they were to provinces (hence, the name "states"). They are still considered to be sovereign bodies within the United States. The federal government has been taking an increasing amount of power for itself since the 14th Amendment was passed (look it up if you are not familiar with it), but a lot of Supreme Court decisions that do not appear to make sense are not made on the basis of "right" and "wrong", but on the basis of "not within the powers of the federal government", as this one was.

Note that in the individual case, the defendant had confessed to the crime, and previously waived the right to have DNA evidence examined.

Also note that 46 of the 50 states recognize a right of the defendant to examine DNA evidence. By the way, President Obama is wrong; there are 57 ISLAMIC states, and only 50 AMERICAN states. Result of an Indonesian education, I suspect.

Now, in the other direction, there is the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (translation: just because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean the right doesn't exist).

The majority went with the 10th Amendment, the minority went with the 9th + the 14th (as the Constitution is limitations on the FEDERAL government, and the Supreme Court has interpreted the rights recognized by the Constitution as also binding on the individual states, with the exception of the 2nd Amendment, cases on which the court has avoided like the plague).

If I were on the court, I probably would have sided with the minority (but that would also mean that I would have been a politically connected lawyer, so who knows), but at least I understand the majority point of view.

[Steven Grant]

when he, and a detective who'd helped him out, presented the evidence to the DA and a police official, they rang the Governor who was ready to give the guy a pardon.

DAs and governors, many of whom started out as DAs, don't like to admit they got a prosecution wrong - and giving someone a pardon is no admission of wrongdoing - not just for ego but once they admit they got one wrong, even prosecuted criminals they got right will start petitioning courts for new trials on the basis that the DA mishandled their prosecution. Lots of paperwork and additional work, and since we keep criminalizing things most DAs' offices are already swamped with too many cases...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Note that in the individual case, the defendant had confessed to the crime, and previously waived the right to have DNA evidence examined.

And ain't it funny how many people end up confessing to crimes they didn't commit, whether as part of a plea deal arranged by lawyers who assure them it's their best option in the situation or after extensive interrogation by police. This is why all interrogations need to be rigorously monitored (preferably by disinterested parties) and recorded, and why all suspects should be represented by a lawyer before interrogation, and the lawyer should be present during interrogation.

Fact is, the number of people wrongly imprisoned might not equate to that great a percentage of the prison population overall, but independent investigators have time and time determined the number on its own merits is no small number, and statistically increases considerably with the seriousness of the crime, as district attorneys are usually far more concerned with getting a conviction when dealing with major crimes cases.

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

. By the way, President Obama is wrong; there are 57 ISLAMIC states, and only 50 AMERICAN states. Result of an Indonesian education, I suspect.


Bush went to Harvard, and that's apparently the best place in America - and in that case I'd say an Indonesian education is a step up, bigot.

Oh shit, sorry, you meant he just didn't learn 'the basics of America' as much, not a slight on Indonesians, their education system, or any kind of back hand slap to someone who didn't receive their full education inside your borders yet is still the man elected to lead your country.
My mistake.

[dancj]

It stands to reason.
I love that expression because it's always said after something that completely doesn't stand to reason.

It makes a nice companion to "There's no smoke without fire"

[bartl]

Oh shit, sorry, you meant he just didn't learn 'the basics of America' as much, not a slight on Indonesians, their education system, or any kind of back hand slap to someone who didn't receive their full education inside your borders yet is still the man elected to lead your country.
My mistake.
Don't worry; most Americans have no idea that Obama received a good chunk of his early education outside the United States, much less that he made the "57 states" remark. He was well shielded by his friends on the press (well, at least according to Obama, the entire U.S. press except for FOX news supported him, so he had a lot of friends running interference for him).

Mind you, I spent a chunk of MY early education in a Dutch school in Amsterdam, although my parents brought a bunch of American textbooks with us; the major holdover from that was, when I took French in college, my professor asked me why I spoke French with a Dutch accent. I have every reason to believe that Indonesian schools were every bit as good as the ones in the Netherlands, and that his lack of early education about the United States lies with his parents, and not his schools.

[Charles RB]

Isn't it brilliant how hard they'll chase someone to lock them up, but how slow they are to let the wrong guy out?

And here was me thinking prisons the world over are overcrowded, and the justice systems all thought that was a problem. Well there's a way to get a free bed, guys!

[Steven Grant]

I love that expression because it's always said after something that completely doesn't stand to reason.

It makes a nice companion to "There's no smoke without fire"

My English mother used that expression the whole time I was growing up, as self-explanatory explanation for everything she ever told me to do that I questioned. Finally when I was 17, she said it and I blew up with a rant that went on some five minutes about how it doesn't stand to reason, it never stands to reason, that doesn't explain anything, it's just a way to get out of giving a real answer, etc. etc. And after I was finished she never said it again, at least not to me.

Another of her favorites was "It's as broad as it is long," which is apparently some English total misunderstanding of the Pythagorean formula. At any rate, she used to use it was an explanation of why it was just as quick to walk around a block as to cut through people's backyards to get from one corner to the far corner. Which is wasn't. MUCH faster to cut through, unless you square the distances, but nature doesn't work like that.

Apparently the English have a lot of screwy dismissive catchphrases...

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Supreme Court decision was that recovery of DNA evidence is a matter for state governments, NOT the federal government, at least for those convicted of state crimes.

For those who are not from the United States, please note that individual states were originally closer to independent nations than they were to provinces (hence, the name "states"). They are still considered to be sovereign bodies within the United States. The federal government has been taking an increasing amount of power for itself since the 14th Amendment was passed (look it up if you are not familiar with it), but a lot of Supreme Court decisions that do not appear to make sense are not made on the basis of "right" and "wrong", but on the basis of "not within the powers of the federal government", as this one was.

Note that in the individual case, the defendant had confessed to the crime, and previously waived the right to have DNA evidence examined.

Also note that 46 of the 50 states recognize a right of the defendant to examine DNA evidence. By the way, President Obama is wrong; there are 57 ISLAMIC states, and only 50 AMERICAN states. Result of an Indonesian education, I suspect.

Now, in the other direction, there is the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (translation: just because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean the right doesn't exist).

The majority went with the 10th Amendment, the minority went with the 9th + the 14th (as the Constitution is limitations on the FEDERAL government, and the Supreme Court has interpreted the rights recognized by the Constitution as also binding on the individual states, with the exception of the 2nd Amendment, cases on which the court has avoided like the plague).

If I were on the court, I probably would have sided with the minority (but that would also mean that I would have been a politically connected lawyer, so who knows), but at least I understand the majority point of view.

Bush went to Harvard, and that's apparently the best place in America - and in that case I'd say an Indonesian education is a step up, bigot.

Oh shit, sorry, you meant he just didn't learn 'the basics of America' as much, not a slight on Indonesians, their education system, or any kind of back hand slap to someone who didn't receive their full education inside your borders yet is still the man elected to lead your country.
My mistake.

It's like your crazy uncle who DRINK! can't stop inserting FECK!! unnecessary words into his GIRLS!!! sentences, isn't it.

[dancj]

My English mother used that expression the whole time I was growing up, as self-explanatory explanation for everything she ever told me to do that I questioned. Finally when I was 17, she said it and I blew up with a rant that went on some five minutes about how it doesn't stand to reason, it never stands to reason, that doesn't explain anything, it's just a way to get out of giving a real answer, etc. etc. And after I was finished she never said it again, at least not to me.
You're my new hero!

[Lord Destiny]

The Supreme Court decision was that recovery of DNA evidence is a matter for state governments, NOT the federal government, at least for those convicted of state crimes.

This is where I disagree with the SCOTUS.

The right to a fair trial applies to states too. And a fair trial includes the use of available technology. It shouldn't be up to the states what technologies are used and not used. That would create a significant disparity in justice from state to state.

[bartl]

This is where I disagree with the SCOTUS.

The right to a fair trial applies to states too. And a fair trial includes the use of available technology. It shouldn't be up to the states what technologies are used and not used. That would create a significant disparity in justice from state to state.
Well, seeing that 4 of the justices also disagreed with the decision, you are in good company.

However, there already is a significant disparity in justice from state to state. The majority of the Supreme Court justices, however, concluded that if they created a precedent, then a greater injustice would have been done (once again, there are excellent arguments on the other side; I'm just trying to explain the reasoning, having listened to Ron Kuby for years do this with cases).

A line has to be drawn between legitimate use of the courts and barratry; the Supreme Court majority drew a line here, whether or not either you or I agree that this is where the line should be drawn.

On the other hand, I do know how easily it is to extract a false confession. I once got a speeding ticket for refusing to allow a truck to smash into my rear fender. When I went to court, I pleaded down to "unsafe driving". When that plea kept me from getting a job a year later, I swore that I don't care what the consequences were, I would never plead guilty to a crime I had not committed. A couple of years later, I was accused of a crime; the police officer told me that if I confessed, I would go free, but if I didn't confess, I would probably be found guilty, and would go to jail. I told the police officer exactly what he could do with his accusations; they let me go and never followed up. Apparently, innocent people are SUPPOSED to get indignant when given deals like this, but I cannot be sure what I would have done had I not been burned once before.

[Steven Grant]

Apparently, innocent people are SUPPOSED to get indignant when given deals like this, but I cannot be sure what I would have done had I not been burned once before.

Mmmmmmaybe.

I doubt that under most circumstances most cops randomly pick innocent people and try to pin crimes on them. But it does seem to be a general tendency for cops to assume whoever looks guilty is guilty. I doubt they ever offer deals with an eye toward exposing the innocent via their indignance, and I suspect a lot of guilty people also get indignant at plea offers. In most cases similar to yours, probably what's going on is that you are assumed by the cops, on whatever evidence they have, however solid or spurious, to be guilty. If you take a deal offered you, it saves them a lot of time and effort, closes the book on a crime, etc. That's why deals are offered. Innocent people take deals for the same reason that cops offer them: they're (or are presented as) less apparent hassle as the alternatives. Or, as Larry Craig would say, "an opportunity to put it all behind me."

You refusing to accept a deal most likely meant forcing the cops to investigate further, or forcing them to drop the matter for lack of interest in investigating further.

The main thing to remember at all times when being interrogated by cops is that cops are completely authorized to lie to you to secure a confession. If the cops say you'll go free if you confess, they're lying. That only happens in church. Had you confessed, on the presumption you'd be on your way five minutes later, the D.A. would use your confession to file charges against you, and then your lucky lawyer would have to tell a jury you only confessed because cops said you'd go free that way, and everyone but you would have a good laugh about it.

Anytime anyone in "authority" offers you a deal, get it in writing and witnessed before proceeding. In all cases, though, if arrested by the cops, especially for something you didn't do, your smartest bet is to mirandize yourself and keep your mouth shut until represented by a lawyer. Nothing cops like better than guys who start talking without their lawyers present.

- Grant

[badMike]

Nothing cops like better than guys who start talking without their lawyers present.A couple months ago I got real addicted to The First 48, a reality show about police investigations. Man, do the cops get pissed when the suspects lawyer up! Then again, I never understand the suspects who start blabbing. Some of them it does seem their consciences catch up with them and they believe the line, "If you just confess then the jury will go easy on you because they'll see you're remorseful." Yeah, ok.

I've also seen enough Judge Judy episodes to know what a judge thinks about suspects who make plea deals. Plea = guilty. Period.

[Steven Grant]

A couple months ago I got real addicted to The First 48, a reality show about police investigations. Man, do the cops get pissed when the suspects lawyer up! Then again, I never understand the suspects who start blabbing. Some of them it does seem their consciences catch up with them and they believe the line, "If you just confess then the jury will go easy on you because they'll see you're remorseful." Yeah, ok.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution will demonstrate that not only did the defendant commit this heinous crime, when caught he bragged to police about it!"

I've also seen enough Judge Judy episodes to know what a judge thinks about suspects who make plea deals. Plea = guilty. Period.

Well, you know... admission of guilt is admission of guilt. Judges throwing out plea deals as inadequate then sentencing on the basis of the guilty plea in the deal (since a plea deal is effectively an agreement that a trial is unnecessary) is hardly unheard of, though it amounts to a bastardization of due process and district attorneys tend not to appreciate it. But judges love running for office and re-election on "tough on crime" platforms...

- Grant