• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Concealing Key Evidence Convicts the Innocent

radcen said:
Two words: Open discovery.
Click to expand...

The first case points out a much bigger problem - plea deals for most and (show?) trials for a few. Obviously, the state is not going to offer a plea deal in exchange for not helping them to make a case against others or to simply plead guilty. It seams that folks who acted in a group got varying sentences not based on their varying roles in the initial crime but for their refusal to self incriminate and thus help the state to convict others in that group.
 
radcen said:
Two words: Open discovery.
Click to expand...

Excellent article, and not exactly new information. As the article mentioned, the Central Park Five is an egregious example of gross malfeasance by the criminal justice system.

There is a reason the government avoids trial where possible--to avoid the discovery process.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Excellent article, and not exactly new information. As the article mentioned, the Central Park Five is an egregious example of gross malfeasance by the criminal justice system.

There is a reason the government avoids trial where possible--to avoid the discovery process.
Click to expand...
Right, it's not new, but it is often overlooked and glossed over. Sort of my Don Quixote-like quest to get the issue before people.

For good or bad, most people still give blind benefit of the doubt to the justice system overall, and perceive that if a person is arrested they must have done something wrong. And percentage-wise they are probably correct. But I believe that most people do not understand that egregious injustices take place as often as they do. It's not a weird random case like this, it's actually not uncommon at all.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The first case points out a much bigger problem - plea deals for most and (show?) trials for a few. Obviously, the state is not going to offer a plea deal in exchange for not helping them to make a case against others or to simply plead guilty. It seams that folks who acted in a group got varying sentences not based on their varying roles in the initial crime but for their refusal to self incriminate and thus help the state to convict others in that group.
Click to expand...
Plea deals are overused to be a problem, absolutely. Especially with draconian mandatory minimum sentences that back people into a corner and make a conviction and record the better option even for an innocent person.

I have read of at least two incidents that have gone to trial where the defendants were tried separately... by the same prosecutor... yet different evidence was used to convict each one. Sometimes contradictory evidence. Hence, I've started wondering if maybe we shouldn't be trying the crime with all defendants at the same time. One would think that the evidence should be the same for all of them, so it shouldn't matter to the prosecution.

The two crimes were the Steve Avery/Brendan Dassey case and the Norfolk Four case.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The first case points out a much bigger problem - plea deals for most and (show?) trials for a few. Obviously, the state is not going to offer a plea deal in exchange for not helping them to make a case against others or to simply plead guilty. It seams that folks who acted in a group got varying sentences not based on their varying roles in the initial crime but for their refusal to self incriminate and thus help the state to convict others in that group.
Click to expand...

accessory is accessory.
 
radcen said:
Plea deals are overused to be a problem, absolutely. Especially with draconian mandatory minimum sentences that back people into a corner and make a conviction and record the better option even for an innocent person.

I have read of at least two incidents that have gone to trial where the defendants were tried separately... by the same prosecutor... yet different evidence was used to convict each one. Sometimes contradictory evidence. Hence, I've started wondering if maybe we shouldn't be trying the crime with all defendants at the same time. One would think that the evidence should be the same for all of them, so it shouldn't matter to the prosecution.

The two crimes were the Steve Avery/Brendan Dassey case and the Norfolk Four case.
Click to expand...

then their lawyers should have figured that out.
 
radcen said:
Plea deals are overused to be a problem, absolutely. Especially with draconian mandatory minimum sentences that back people into a corner and make a conviction and record the better option even for an innocent person.

I have read of at least two incidents that have gone to trial where the defendants were tried separately... by the same prosecutor... yet different evidence was used to convict each one. Sometimes contradictory evidence. Hence, I've started wondering if maybe we shouldn't be trying the crime with all defendants at the same time. One would think that the evidence should be the same for all of them, so it shouldn't matter to the prosecution.

The two crimes were the Steve Avery/Brendan Dassey case and the Norfolk Four case.
Click to expand...

Yeah that shouldnt be allowed and is a real problem IMO. Dont get me wrong im SURE we could find examples of guilty men getting off because of PROPER procedure and disclosing all evidence making it harder to convict and giving reasonable doubt but its WAY better than innocents going to jail.
 
radcen said:
Plea deals are overused to be a problem, absolutely. Especially with draconian mandatory minimum sentences that back people into a corner and make a conviction and record the better option even for an innocent person.

I have read of at least two incidents that have gone to trial where the defendants were tried separately... by the same prosecutor... yet different evidence was used to convict each one. Sometimes contradictory evidence. Hence, I've started wondering if maybe we shouldn't be trying the crime with all defendants at the same time. One would think that the evidence should be the same for all of them, so it shouldn't matter to the prosecution.

The two crimes were the Steve Avery/Brendan Dassey case and the Norfolk Four case.
Click to expand...

That would harm the ability to make plea deals (thus get guaranteed convictions) and force defendants to be charged (or associated) with the same crimes. If one member of a group (allegedly) commits crimes A, B, and C, another member commits crime D and another commits crimes B and D then how and why should they be tried together? IMHO, that would be very confusing for the judge and jury to keep straight. Imagine the chaos of 10 or 20 "rioters" all having to share the same trial (and having to receive the same sentence?)

Since plea deals are the rule rather than the exception that is very unlikely to happen.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That would harm the ability to make plea deals (thus get guaranteed convictions) and force defendants to be charged (or associated) with the same crimes. If one member of a group (allegedly) commits crimes A, B, and C, another member commits crime D and another commits crimes B and D then how and why should they be tried together? IMHO, that would be very confusing for the judge and jury to keep straight. Imagine the chaos of 10 or 20 "rioters" all having to share the same trial (and having to receive the same sentence?)

Since plea deals are the rule rather than the exception that is very unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...
Probably 95%+ of what is suggested on DP is not likely to ever happen. We discuss how thing should be, anyway.

I could possibly see separate trials where the level of participation is different. Someone being only a get-away driver in a bank robbery, for example. The two cases I noted, though, all were charged with murder, as active participants in the murder, as part of a single murder. The connected dots, one would think, would be the same for everyone involved, but according to the prosecution not necessarily. It often varied according to whatever the prosecution could get the defendant to confess to, and tailored around that instead of the physical evidence and/or a combination of other evidence.

Confessions are still viewed as the "gold standard" in criminal trials, and tend to trump pretty much everything else, even DNA.
 
ludin said:
accessory is accessory.
Click to expand...

Yep, but accessory to is a separate charge (with a different sentence) from conspiracy to or first degree murder. Different charges require different evidence. I also oppose the idea of letting judges or juries change (reduce?) the charges (the idea behind the lesser included offense nonsense) - if someone is charged with X then that should be a straight up guilty/not guilty situation at trial. That would also help to prevent the (normal?) overcharging used to get higher bail and plea deal "lesser" confessions.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but accessory to is a separate charge (with a different sentence) from conspiracy to or first degree murder. Different charges require different evidence. I also oppose the idea of letting judges or juries change (reduce?) the charges (the idea behind the lesser included offense nonsense) - if someone is charged with X then that should be a straight up guilty/not guilty situation at trial. That would also help to prevent the (normal?) overcharging used to get higher bail and deal "lesser" confessions.
Click to expand...

prosecutors always go for the max they can get.
it also depends on why you are there.

if you were driving the car for the guy that robbed the store and shot someone then a murder charge is in your future.
now you may be able to plea down if you roll on your buddy.

that is just how the system works.
 
ludin said:
prosecutors always go for the max they can get.
it also depends on why you are there.

if you were driving the car for the guy that robbed the store and shot someone then a murder charge is in your future.
now you may be able to plea down if you roll on your buddy.

that is just how the system works.
Click to expand...

We all seem to be aware of "how the system currently works" and if that (what is equates to that it is what should be?) argument were valid then DP would be a very different and boring place. The idea that your guilt of murder for any participation in a felony that results in murder is "assured" yet is also contingent on whether you transfer more blame to (rat out?) the "actual" killer makes no sense at all. I could see cooperation/confession (or even expression of remorse) being used to influence the sentence but not to change the actual law or charge - you are either guilty or not guilty of the murder.
 
radcen said:
Two words: Open discovery.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's bizarre.

I learned a little about this sort of thing recently while watching some true crime videos. A guy was convicted of murdering his wife even though another suspect failed a lie detector. The prosecutor never disclosed the failed lie detector to the defense. But, it turns out that they did not have to disclose this failed test. Why? Because lie detector tests are not admissible as evidence. I guess that makes sense. But...

This begs a question. Would not a jury find reasonable doubt that husband was the killer if they new another suspect failed a lie detector?

And, even if the defense could not say, "Look, Suspect A failed a lie detector," would it not have at the very least have been beneficial for the defense to know this? Hell, a good lawyer and investigator could have found some other evidence and avenues to pursue which would have been admissible in the courtroom had they been aware of that information.
 
Most public defender offices & staff are under funded and over loaded, while the DA's get pampered.
 
calamity said:
Yeah, it's bizarre.

I learned a little about this sort of thing recently while watching some true crime videos. A guy was convicted of murdering his wife even though another suspect failed a lie detector. The prosecutor never disclosed the failed lie detector to the defense. But, it turns out that they did not have to disclose this failed test. Why? Because lie detector tests are not admissible as evidence. I guess that makes sense. But...

This begs a question. Would not a jury find reasonable doubt that husband was the killer if they new another suspect failed a lie detector?

And, even if the defense could not say, "Look, Suspect A failed a lie detector," would it not have at the very least have been beneficial for the defense to know this? Hell, a good lawyer and investigator could have found some other evidence and avenues to pursue which would have been admissible in the courtroom had they been aware of that information.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying, but on this issue I believe the law is correct. Polygraph tests should not be admissible in either direction. They're junk science, at best.
 
radcen said:
I get what you're saying, but on this issue I believe the law is correct. Polygraph tests should not be admissible in either direction. They're junk science, at best.
Click to expand...

I agree that lie detector evidence should not be admissible, but I do not believe that it should be withheld. It really does smack of intentional deception when a prosecutor is allowed to cherry pick what gets turned over and what does not.

BTW: The case I referred to was overturned. Guess why?

Appeals court says prosecutors withheld evidence

The Temple opinion concludes that Harris County policy in that era was to routinely withhold information from defense attorneys about alternative suspects or witnesses identified by police that the prosecutor did not plan to call to testify at trial, based on testimony offered as part of the appeal.

...The court majority found that DeGuerin was denied access to approximately 1,400 pages of offense reports that included a detailed investigation into an alternate suspect - a teenage neighbor of the Temples who had previously burglarized a home and stolen two shotguns similar to the one used in the murder.
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
I agree that lie detector evidence should not be admissible, but I do not believe that it should be withheld. It really does smack of intentional deception when a prosecutor is allowed to cherry pick what gets turned over and what does not.

BTW: The case I referred to was overturned. Guess why?

Appeals court says prosecutors withheld evidence
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the fact of a polygraph being done should be shared, but still not mentioned in court? I think that's a good idea. It also goes with how I perceive "open discovery".

If the prosecution does a DNA test, the results should automatically be shared with both the prosecution and the defense. If a person is interviewed by one side, all results should be automatically shared with the other side. And if a polygraph is done, even though it is not admissible in court, the results should be shared with the other side.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We all seem to be aware of "how the system currently works" and if that (what is equates to that it is what should be?) argument were valid then DP would be a very different and boring place. The idea that your guilt of murder for any participation in a felony that results in murder is "assured" yet is also contingent on whether you transfer more blame to (rat out?) the "actual" killer makes no sense at all. I could see cooperation/confession (or even expression of remorse) being used to influence the sentence but not to change the actual law or charge - you are either guilty or not guilty of the murder.
Click to expand...

that is basically what you are doing when you give up your team. you are accepting a lesser sentence for cooperating. other times you can get immunity if you have enough valuable information.
and helping someone commit murder you are just as guilty as they are.

now if you are just going to the store and your buddy does something stupid that is a different story.
 
radcen said:
Are you saying that the fact of a polygraph being done should be shared, but still not mentioned in court? I think that's a good idea. It also goes with how I perceive "open discovery".

If the prosecution does a DNA test, the results should automatically be shared with both the prosecution and the defense. If a person is interviewed by one side, all results should be automatically shared with the other side. And if a polygraph is done, even though it is not admissible in court, the results should be shared with the other side.
Click to expand...

if a DNA test was done that should be shared with the defense during discovery. it is required that the prosecution turn over all evidence to the defense.
that would include DNA tests.
 
radcen said:
Are you saying that the fact of a polygraph being done should be shared, but still not mentioned in court? I think that's a good idea. It also goes with how I perceive "open discovery".

If the prosecution does a DNA test, the results should automatically be shared with both the prosecution and the defense. If a person is interviewed by one side, all results should be automatically shared with the other side. And if a polygraph is done, even though it is not admissible in court, the results should be shared with the other side.
Click to expand...

Yep. Hand over the polygraph results even though they can never be used in court. It's still information beneficial to the defense.

The Harris County DA withheld pretty much everything on this second suspect, not just the polygraph results. Interviews, evidence, you name it, they withheld it. That is why the conviction was overturned.

My argument is that by allowing selective disclosure, it is only natural that exculpatory evidence will be withheld---even if it is unintentional or legal. Just having that polygraph result alone would have alerted the defense to the fact that a viable alternate suspect existed. That would have given them reason to dig deeper, find his interviews, prior arrests, guns he had, motive, opportunity, etc...at the very least it would have given them an avenue to pursue to bring reasonable doubt into the equation. The prosecution shut all of that down...certainly not by accident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom