| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2011 05:50:41 PM · #26 |
Thank God the West Memphis 3 have finally been freed. One of the greatest failures of the American Judicial System in the past 25 years has been rectified. Anyone who has spend any time studying this case (inlcuding two of the slain chilren's parents) agree that the prosecution was flawed and innocent teens were sent to prison for a crime likely committed by another individual (one of the children's fathers has been a suspect as well, especially after having his teeth removed after it had come out that what were thought to be knife wounds were in fact bite marks). . .
Message edited by author 2011-08-19 18:54:44.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2011 06:15:12 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
What is wrong with this country has more to do with the fact that we tend to jump to conclusions based on tabloid news without all the facts and not so much individual cases like this. |
+1001 |
I don't see what jumping... If they were wrongly convicted then hold a retrial... if acquitted then they should be entitled to compensation for wrongful conviction & detention, otherwise put back in prison / death row. It's the plea bargains and deals that give me the bad taste.
Your right, I don't know the facts but I would expect a retrial to get to that with a decision. There would need to be impetus for the retrial - new evidence or whatever, so let a jury hear it and decide. |
Now, let's just suppose that you were wrongly convicted of a murder, and then 20 years into your unjust imprisonment somebody finally convinces the justice system that given some doubts created by new or newly evaluated evidence a retrial is warranted. You know that during that retrial the prosecutor will once again try to get you convicted and you cannot be certain that the new evidence or the performance of your defense team will be sufficient to convince a new jury of your innocence, yet you know you are innocent. Now, the prosecutor comes to you and offers you a plea deal where if you plea guilty you will be freed based on time served. Are you saying that at that point YOU would refuse the deal and demand a retrial instead? |
|
|
|
08/19/2011 06:19:47 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
What is wrong with this country has more to do with the fact that we tend to jump to conclusions based on tabloid news without all the facts and not so much individual cases like this. |
+1001 |
I don't see what jumping... If they were wrongly convicted then hold a retrial... if acquitted then they should be entitled to compensation for wrongful conviction & detention, otherwise put back in prison / death row. It's the plea bargains and deals that give me the bad taste.
Your right, I don't know the facts but I would expect a retrial to get to that with a decision. There would need to be impetus for the retrial - new evidence or whatever, so let a jury hear it and decide. |
Now, let's just suppose that you were wrongly convicted of a murder, and then 20 years into your unjust imprisonment somebody finally convinces the justice system that given some doubts created by new or newly evaluated evidence a retrial is warranted. You know that during that retrial the prosecutor will once again try to get you convicted and you cannot be certain that the new evidence or the performance of your defense team will be sufficient to convince a new jury of your innocence, yet you know you are innocent. Now, the prosecutor comes to you and offers you a plea deal where if you plea guilty you will be freed based on time served. Are you saying that at that point YOU would refuse the deal and demand a retrial instead? |
I certainly would not. . .and neither would most people. . .especially since they could overturn this conviction on appeal the same way they could have overturned the prior one that was holding them in prison.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2011 06:27:55 PM · #29 |
What's wrong with this country? The fact that be mainstream media is more concerned about increasing rating via sensationalism than actually reporting the facts, which is exactly the reason I consider my BS in journalism a complete waste of time and money.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2011 06:44:54 PM · #30 |
i went back an reread the story, its seems they updated since i first read it and now its a little more objective. funny how tone of the story can be so influential. my initial response was along the lines of disbelief, now it seems like i was off base.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2011 07:14:16 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I watched a special investigation on that case recently - they made a very convincing case that these three kids were railroaded and were wrongly convicted. You'd have to see all the evidence and judge for yourself, but the need to convict anyone because of political pressure creates these situations quite often and once the police and prosecutors target someone, they often become extremely myopic and throw out any sense of justice in favor of a conviction.
What happened to the boys made me sick to my stomach. Thinking that they put the wrong people in prison for it made me almost as sick. |
I watched the same program and I agree, by the end I truly believed these boys were convicted wrongly. So sad for all the families of the victims and those who have been accused and imprisoned.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2011 07:58:31 PM · #32 |
I was arguing about this with my dopey cousin.
She posted HURRAY....THE W. Memphis Three are FREE !
I said...what are you cheering for? Three convicted murderers walk out of prison.
She says...they were innocent....thanks to Johnny Depp and Eddie Vedder they are now free!!!! She goes on to say that there was NO physical evidence linking them to the crime.
I said, but a jury convicted them with other evidence. She says...WHAT...but they didn't do it because there was NO EVIDENCE...they are innocent.
I then posted her Facebook post of a few weeks back....It read......CASEY ANTHONY A MURDERER SET FREE BY A JURY !!!! What....she is GUILTY....!!!!! SOMEONE NEEDS TO KILL HER !!!!
I said, Whats the deal? She had no answer....she danced and jived and kept saying the 3 were innocent.
I said to her that she was a victim of the media.....Nancy Grace and all the news shows said Anthony was guilty and you bought it.....now Johnny Depp and Eddie Vedder along with other media convinced you that the three convicts were innocent.......
....I told her plain and simple....you followed the media on BOTH issues.......She said....Hamaanaa hamanaa....no I'm not led by the media....you are !....
I ended it there LOL
Message edited by author 2011-08-19 22:04:20.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2011 08:48:41 PM · #33 |
Happens all the time and you quote one singular example that has yet to be adjudicated... your actions in this instance are no better than those of the police officers you accuse.
Let's all take a step backwards and wait... if the officers are indeed guilty then justice will run its' course.
Ray
|
|
|
|
08/19/2011 10:13:04 PM · #34 |
An addition to my earlier post....
Over the last few hours I noticed on my Facebook page:
Nearly 100% of my FB friends that said Casey Anthony was GUILTY and the jury got it wrong are now saying that the W. Memphis Three are INNOCENT and their Jury got it wrong !
As far as I can see (and I remember the WMT case when it was going on) neither defendant(s) in the two of these cases had any physical evidence against them.
All of my friends admit that they did not know of the WMT case until Depp and Veder got involved. They also followed Nancy Grace on the Anthony trial.
I told them all that they are prime examples of how the MEDIA can influence people into "following the lead" instead of gathering all "real" info and making your own decision.....they told me I shouldn't be commenting on the WMT case because I don't know what I'm talking about !!!
|
|
|
|
08/19/2011 11:38:50 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I watched a special investigation on that case recently - they made a very convincing case that these three kids were railroaded and were wrongly convicted. You'd have to see all the evidence and judge for yourself, but the need to convict anyone because of political pressure creates these situations quite often and once the police and prosecutors target someone, they often become extremely myopic and throw out any sense of justice in favor of a conviction.
What happened to the boys made me sick to my stomach. Thinking that they put the wrong people in prison for it made me almost as sick. |
I watched the same program and I agree, by the end I truly believed these boys were convicted wrongly. So sad for all the families of the victims and those who have been accused and imprisoned. |
I used to watch "In Search Of" with Leonard Nimoy and I was convinced that Bigfoot, Aliens, Pyramid Power, UFO's and Nessie were real.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2011 11:47:58 PM · #36 |
LOL....
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I watched a special investigation on that case recently - they made a very convincing case that these three kids were railroaded and were wrongly convicted. You'd have to see all the evidence and judge for yourself, but the need to convict anyone because of political pressure creates these situations quite often and once the police and prosecutors target someone, they often become extremely myopic and throw out any sense of justice in favor of a conviction.
What happened to the boys made me sick to my stomach. Thinking that they put the wrong people in prison for it made me almost as sick. |
I watched the same program and I agree, by the end I truly believed these boys were convicted wrongly. So sad for all the families of the victims and those who have been accused and imprisoned. |
I used to watch "In Search Of" with Leonard Nimoy and I was convinced that Bigfoot, Aliens, Pyramid Power, UFO's and Nessie were real. |
|
|
|
|
08/19/2011 11:50:38 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I used to watch "In Search Of" with Leonard Nimoy and I was convinced that Bigfoot, Aliens, Pyramid Power, UFO's and Nessie were real. |
They're NOT?
R. |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 12:23:18 AM · #38 |
A band I used to listen to wrote a song about this trial.
Free the Three - ZAO
"You failed to do your job.
Superstitious cover up.
They'll pay you because of your mistakes.
You lie, you lie, you lie and they pay.
You fail, you fail, you fail and they pay.
Superstition.
Unholy children.
Blinded vision.
false ambition.
Can you show me how they're guilty?
YOu liars, you killers, You fools of superstition.
Blame the (so-called) unholy children with your false ambition and blinded
vision.
FREE THE THREE."
Here is the free the three site. //www.wm3.org/ |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 12:29:21 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Now, let's just suppose that you were wrongly convicted of a murder, and then 20 years into your unjust imprisonment somebody finally convinces the justice system that given some doubts created by new or newly evaluated evidence a retrial is warranted. You know that during that retrial the prosecutor will once again try to get you convicted and you cannot be certain that the new evidence or the performance of your defense team will be sufficient to convince a new jury of your innocence, yet you know you are innocent. Now, the prosecutor comes to you and offers you a plea deal where if you plea guilty you will be freed based on time served. Are you saying that at that point YOU would refuse the deal and demand a retrial instead? |
It's a good question and I don't know.... My point is the justice system should not be getting into that position..... |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 01:57:47 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Now, let's just suppose that you were wrongly convicted of a murder, and then 20 years into your unjust imprisonment somebody finally convinces the justice system that given some doubts created by new or newly evaluated evidence a retrial is warranted. You know that during that retrial the prosecutor will once again try to get you convicted and you cannot be certain that the new evidence or the performance of your defense team will be sufficient to convince a new jury of your innocence, yet you know you are innocent. Now, the prosecutor comes to you and offers you a plea deal where if you plea guilty you will be freed based on time served. Are you saying that at that point YOU would refuse the deal and demand a retrial instead? |
It's a good question and I don't know.... My point is the justice system should not be getting into that position..... |
The justice system in a perfect world wouldn't get in that position, but we live in real world. We should consider ourselves fortunate to live in a society with a justice system that may not be perfect but is probably the one you would rather be in, whether you are a victim, a perpetrator or most importantly a falsely accused perpetrator. |
|
|
|
08/21/2011 08:49:39 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Happens all the time and you quote one singular example that has yet to be adjudicated... your actions in this instance are no better than those of the police officers you accuse.
Let's all take a step backwards and wait... if the officers are indeed guilty then justice will run its' course.
Ray |
The charges against Dixon were dropped, case closed. There is now a new case against the cops. Talk about lying cops...
|
|
|
|
08/21/2011 11:26:34 AM · #42 |
Not familiar with the case besides what was included in the (amended?) article. However, as an attorney, the mere fact of the plea deal is enough to convince me that the State's original case was crap, and potentially deliberately fraudulent crap.
For a state supreme court to even order a new hearing to consider DNA evidence and the possibility of juror misconduct, the evidence favoring the three men would have to be overwhelming (i.e., there was a ton of smoke). For the state to suddenly offer up a plea deal (that most assuredly shields the state from wrongful conviction lawsuits), let's me know that the prosecutors were afraid to let that evidence be aired in open court (i.e., the smoke most definitely leads to fire).
Anyone familiar with the criminal legal system in the U.S. understands just how tilted that system is toward the prosecutors and conviction. Once a conviction is actually obtained, the tilt toward the prosecution adjusts even more, becoming more of a full on cliff face (with prosecutors and judges allowed to metaphorical throw rocks down on the appellants trying to ascend). These guys are just lucky that they had been convicted by a jury rather than a guilty plea. (And yes, innocent people do plead guilty, often on the advice of their attorneys who know they are innocent, and their attorneys are not necessarily wrong to recommend that they do.) In cases where there is a plea of guilty, there is case law establishing that even positive evidence of innocence is not sufficient to overturn a conviction and sentence.
|
|
|
|
08/21/2011 05:03:20 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Happens all the time and you quote one singular example that has yet to be adjudicated... your actions in this instance are no better than those of the police officers you accuse.
Let's all take a step backwards and wait... if the officers are indeed guilty then justice will run its' course.
Ray |
The charges against Dixon were dropped, case closed. There is now a new case against the cops. Talk about lying cops... |
I gather you did not comprehend the gist of my comments in the least did you. You said it happens all the time and provided a singular example... List several where the police were found guilty and then we can talk about it.
As for the charges being dropped, that happens as a matter of course. You may be shocked to hear this but some people are guilty but the probabilities of conviction are such that the Crown opts not to proceed.
I do hope you understand the difference.
Let us be clear on one thing... if indeed these police officers did violate this person's constitutional rights then let them suffer the consequences. I would however prefer not to pass judgment without first having had the matter adjudicated by the proper authorities.
Ray
Message edited by author 2011-08-21 17:09:17. |
|
|
|
08/21/2011 05:41:05 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Not familiar with the case besides what was included in the (amended?) article. However, as an attorney, the mere fact of the plea deal is enough to convince me that the State's original case was crap, and potentially deliberately fraudulent crap.
For a state supreme court to even order a new hearing to consider DNA evidence and the possibility of juror misconduct, the evidence favoring the three men would have to be overwhelming (i.e., there was a ton of smoke). For the state to suddenly offer up a plea deal (that most assuredly shields the state from wrongful conviction lawsuits), let's me know that the prosecutors were afraid to let that evidence be aired in open court (i.e., the smoke most definitely leads to fire).
Anyone familiar with the criminal legal system in the U.S. understands just how tilted that system is toward the prosecutors and conviction. Once a conviction is actually obtained, the tilt toward the prosecution adjusts even more, becoming more of a full on cliff face (with prosecutors and judges allowed to metaphorical throw rocks down on the appellants trying to ascend). These guys are just lucky that they had been convicted by a jury rather than a guilty plea. (And yes, innocent people do plead guilty, often on the advice of their attorneys who know they are innocent, and their attorneys are not necessarily wrong to recommend that they do.) In cases where there is a plea of guilty, there is case law establishing that even positive evidence of innocence is not sufficient to overturn a conviction and sentence. |
I believe I heard on NPR that there was a guilty plea, but a very special one where the defendant essentially says they did not do it but the evidence is against them so they are likely to be convicted. I don't believe there was any jury in the case (at least in the one of the last guy released).
|
|
|
|
08/21/2011 06:30:46 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Not familiar with the case besides what was included in the (amended?) article. However, as an attorney, the mere fact of the plea deal is enough to convince me that the State's original case was crap, and potentially deliberately fraudulent crap.
For a state supreme court to even order a new hearing to consider DNA evidence and the possibility of juror misconduct, the evidence favoring the three men would have to be overwhelming (i.e., there was a ton of smoke). For the state to suddenly offer up a plea deal (that most assuredly shields the state from wrongful conviction lawsuits), let's me know that the prosecutors were afraid to let that evidence be aired in open court (i.e., the smoke most definitely leads to fire).
Anyone familiar with the criminal legal system in the U.S. understands just how tilted that system is toward the prosecutors and conviction. Once a conviction is actually obtained, the tilt toward the prosecution adjusts even more, becoming more of a full on cliff face (with prosecutors and judges allowed to metaphorical throw rocks down on the appellants trying to ascend). These guys are just lucky that they had been convicted by a jury rather than a guilty plea. (And yes, innocent people do plead guilty, often on the advice of their attorneys who know they are innocent, and their attorneys are not necessarily wrong to recommend that they do.) In cases where there is a plea of guilty, there is case law establishing that even positive evidence of innocence is not sufficient to overturn a conviction and sentence. |
I believe I heard on NPR that there was a guilty plea, but a very special one where the defendant essentially says they did not do it but the evidence is against them so they are likely to be convicted. I don't believe there was any jury in the case (at least in the one of the last guy released). |
The guilty plea you are referring to is the recent agreement that allowed them to get out of jail. It supplants their original guilty convictions, which look to have been the result of a jury trial. The plea came about because the state supreme court ordered a new hearing looking into possible jury manipulation, among other issues. There wouldn't be any possibility for jury manipulation, unless there had been a jury trial. |
|
|
|
08/21/2011 07:23:00 PM · #46 |
Here it is:
Found guilty by Jury 18 years ago. (I was interested in the case back then b/c it was Rock and Rollish)
Three 8 year old boys killed...very bad...naked, tied up, some mutilation. All had been struck in head. Two drowned in inches of water in muddy canal. One dies of head wound and cuts.
Three teens arrested after investigation.
One confesses after 12+ hours of interrogation. He says he was there. Says the two others murdered the boys. Says "when I looked and saw what happend...I ran off"
Other two do not confess.
A witness places Echoles near the scene in correct time frame. Says Echoles was covered in mud.
EDIT: When police ask Echoles what he knows about the murders, he says only what he's heard. They ask him to tell them what he has heard. He gives released details but also mentions the mutilation of genital etc. This was not yet release by police....but defense says it was common knowledge) Uh Oh!
Fiber expert matches one of the dead boys clothes fibers to same fiber found in Echoles home.
Knife found behind Echoles home in mud/pond. (I think one expert said the knife did not match wounds)
At the time of the killings, a hair was found at the scene. DNA testing of the time could not include or exclude the three teen accused.
The BIG story of the time was what the motive was....Satanic Ritual spurred on by certain hard rock/thrash bands the teens were fond of.(Not sure but I think the teens were found to have practiced or had writings/drawings of satanic rituals. (I CAN'T BE SURE OF THIS THOUGH...I would have to read up)
Teens go to prison for life. At one time Echoles was on death row.
Years later it was found that the hair that was found at the scene matched one of the dead boy's step-father - who he lived with. He was never a suspect and still is not. Why? Because the hair is proof of nothing except that the boy carried a hair from his home on his clothes, shoes etc. (After reading up on this, I could see how the DA can say this. I'm sure my hairs are all over my house, kids wife, dogs etc...This does not mean I'm a murderer.
Years later, the girl's mother who saw Echoles covered in mud says she is not sure about her daughter's testimony and doubts it (daughter does not change story as far as I know)
All appeals are finished. No Arkansas court overturns because there is no wrongdoing found and everything is in order.
Rock Star Eddie Vedder, Actor Johnny Depp and one of the Dixie Chicks take on the case...stating there is not evidence....they are innocent etc...
They throw money into the defense along with the big name publicity. Finally a judge decides that a NEW trial may be in order.
DA feels he can win the trial but will be difficult. The fiber expert is dead, hair matches father of victim, witness mother says her daughter may have lied...etc. DA will go to trial if necessary.
As in all trials, you plead Guilty or Not Guilty. The State decides that their plea offer will be one that is legal but rarely used.
The guilty statement will be something like: Plead GUILTY and admit that the state likely has enough evidence to convict you again. If you take this plea, State will sentence you to time served plus 10 years probation.
If you plead NOT Guilty - The State tries you again (they won a new trial), however, if you are found guilty, we will go for same sentence as the last time and it will be carried out.
They took the plea and plead guilty. They are all three still convicted murderers. They were released.
*****
I remember the first trial and felt they were guilty....nothing has changed my mind. However, I've been busting it up with some family and friends who think I"m crazy and the teens are not guilty.
I had a simple solution to that problem
I looked back over their Facebook status' after the Casey Athoney verdict of Not-Guilty. They ALL posted that SHE WAS GUILTY and should have gotten the death penality. I posted that If the jury would have sent her to death or NO physical evidence, it may have been a mistake. Without getting into the Anthony case at this time...I'll keep it short: I said just because Casey went out drinking, got a tattoo and whored around, it is no proof that she killed her child. They thought I was nuts.
I told them they were all victims of the media....their only knowledge of the teen killer case was the current news reports that ALWAYS mentions Eddie Vedder and the other stars. And at least to me tilted towards freeing the teens.
I told them that they watched NANCY GRACE and watched all the tabloid news reports on Casey Anthony and were sucked in.
They insist they are not media "victims" as I put it....but I say they are.
***Please do not jump all over me if I left something out or twisted something around....I"m just telling you what I know.***
Message edited by author 2011-08-21 19:26:59. |
|
|
|
08/21/2011 08:27:24 PM · #47 |
according to your own post, kenskid, that is a pathetic amount of evidence to convict someone on.
Unless you believe unconditionally in confessions, which I don't. Clearly it took 12 hours because they were forcing him to confess. Not all cops are bad. But they're not all good, either. |
|
|
|
08/21/2011 08:51:06 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Happens all the time and you quote one singular example that has yet to be adjudicated... your actions in this instance are no better than those of the police officers you accuse.
Let's all take a step backwards and wait... if the officers are indeed guilty then justice will run its' course.
Ray |
The charges against Dixon were dropped, case closed. There is now a new case against the cops. Talk about lying cops... |
I gather you did not comprehend the gist of my comments in the least did you. You said it happens all the time and provided a singular example... List several where the police were found guilty and then we can talk about it.
As for the charges being dropped, that happens as a matter of course. You may be shocked to hear this but some people are guilty but the probabilities of conviction are such that the Crown opts not to proceed.
I do hope you understand the difference.
Let us be clear on one thing... if indeed these police officers did violate this person's constitutional rights then let them suffer the consequences. I would however prefer not to pass judgment without first having had the matter adjudicated by the proper authorities.
Ray |
Ray says: "Happens all the time and you quote one singular example that has yet to be adjudicated."
You're the one with the communication problem...
|
|
|
|
08/21/2011 09:46:56 PM · #49 |
Not sure what you're hammering me on. I just laid out what I know. I didn't say I believed the confession or if the "girl" lied or not or if the fiber expert was an idiot or a genius.
In addition I was also simply letting family and friends know that they had Casey Anthony in the death chamber with little or no physical evidence.
These three guys may be innocent or guilty. All I have to go on is the first guilty verdict and the story behind the new trial/plea deal.
Also, my father retired from the NOPD in the early 80's. Divorced in the early 70s, I barely remember living with him. I can tell you two things I do remember him telling me:
1. Don't ever let a stranger get you in a car or into their house. You fight, scream, bite, and kick - and if they get you in the car....you MAKE them WRECK THE CAR....do whatever you can to get free.
2. The next thing is remember is him telling me this in my teens as I started to drive; " If you're ever stopped by the police for traffic or for a crime, even if you feel you are totally innocent, you say "yes sir" and "no sir" or "I'm not sure sir". I, being a smart ass said, Well what if the cop is an Asshole? My dad told me to listen to what he (my dad) said or face the possibility of the cop BEATING THE SHIT OUT OF YOU UNTIL YOU BLURT OUT--- Yes, yes...I killed Kennedy" !
So...I don't need to be told that there are bad cops and good cops...I know it from a good cop.
Back to the WMT and Casey Anthony - I don't give a crap if they are all guilty or all innocent. I'll likely never run into any of them in the next 40 years. It just amazes me how my family and friends can scream "they're innocent, because they were railroaded" and then say Casey Anthony should DIE....the jury got it wrong. By their own admission, they know nothing of the facts except what Nancy Grace and other TV broadcasts said about both cases.
Originally posted by posthumous:
according to your own post, kenskid, that is a pathetic amount of evidence to convict someone on.
Unless you believe unconditionally in confessions, which I don't. Clearly it took 12 hours because they were forcing him to confess. Not all cops are bad. But they're not all good, either. |
|
|
|
|
08/21/2011 09:48:56 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Not familiar with the case besides what was included in the (amended?) article. However, as an attorney, the mere fact of the plea deal is enough to convince me that the State's original case was crap, and potentially deliberately fraudulent crap.
For a state supreme court to even order a new hearing to consider DNA evidence and the possibility of juror misconduct, the evidence favoring the three men would have to be overwhelming (i.e., there was a ton of smoke). For the state to suddenly offer up a plea deal (that most assuredly shields the state from wrongful conviction lawsuits), let's me know that the prosecutors were afraid to let that evidence be aired in open court (i.e., the smoke most definitely leads to fire).
Anyone familiar with the criminal legal system in the U.S. understands just how tilted that system is toward the prosecutors and conviction. Once a conviction is actually obtained, the tilt toward the prosecution adjusts even more, becoming more of a full on cliff face (with prosecutors and judges allowed to metaphorical throw rocks down on the appellants trying to ascend). These guys are just lucky that they had been convicted by a jury rather than a guilty plea. (And yes, innocent people do plead guilty, often on the advice of their attorneys who know they are innocent, and their attorneys are not necessarily wrong to recommend that they do.) In cases where there is a plea of guilty, there is case law establishing that even positive evidence of innocence is not sufficient to overturn a conviction and sentence. |
Thank you. The NPR article was unclear or I wasn't listening close enough. I thought the guilty plea was the original bargain way back when.
I believe I heard on NPR that there was a guilty plea, but a very special one where the defendant essentially says they did not do it but the evidence is against them so they are likely to be convicted. I don't believe there was any jury in the case (at least in the one of the last guy released). |
The guilty plea you are referring to is the recent agreement that allowed them to get out of jail. It supplants their original guilty convictions, which look to have been the result of a jury trial. The plea came about because the state supreme court ordered a new hearing looking into possible jury manipulation, among other issues. There wouldn't be any possibility for jury manipulation, unless there had been a jury trial. |
Thank you. The NPR article was unclear or I wasn't listening close enough. I thought the guilty plea was the original bargain way back when.
Message edited by author 2011-08-21 21:52:39. |
|
