Supreme court rules against exonerated death row inmates

[yellowtail3]

Supreme court rules against exonerated death row inmates:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-exonerated-death-row-inmate-who-sued-prosecutors/2011/03/29/AF8tZPwB_story.html


This is a shame. Seems to me that prosecutors who withhold exculpatory evidence generally get away with it, and that's just wrong.
From the good people at The Innocence Project, doing God's work:
By its controversial 5-4 decision in Connick v. Thompson, the U.S. Supreme Court took away one of the only remaining means for the wrongfully convicted to hold prosecutors accountable for willful misconduct. Although all other professionals, from doctors to airline pilots to clergy, can be held liable for their negligence, the Supreme Court has effectively given district attorney offices complete legal immunity for the actions of their assistants, even when an office knowingly abandons its responsibility to disclose exculpatory evidence in its zeal to win convictions.
I am not a bit surprised by this, but is still sucks. Some more:
 

Groups representing prosecutors have argued that there are already mechanisms that effectively address misconduct, yet studies have revealed that these systems hold prosecutors accountableless than one percent of the time.
Recent reports have shown that when prosecutors abuse or misuse the power invested in them by the state they face virtually no consequences for their actions. According to Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct in California 1997-2009, prosecutors were found by appellate courts to have committed misconduct 707 times from 1997 to 2009, yet were disciplined only 6 times. A USA Today investigation by Brad Heath and Kevin McCoy that was published on Sept. 23, 2010, documented 201 instances where federal prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules since 1997 and noted that only one of those prosecutors was suspended from practicing law - and that was only for one year. While it may be that each of these violations did not merit a severe sanction, each incident required a review anda transparent response. The public has a right to know what happens and whether they can have confidence that errors and misconduct are being addressed and prevented.

Here you go: make your voice heard on this issue -
https://secure2.convio.net/ip/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=267&autologin=true&AddInterest=1241

[BUGEYE]

crippling the prosecutor is no way to bring justice.  he needs to be like a bulldog in the courtroom because the defense certainly is.
the fear of lawsuits hanging over his head would hand every case to the defense.

[OldSchoolRanger]

BUGEYE - Good reply, and excellent justification.

[powderman]

crippling the prosecutor is no way to bring justice.  he needs to be like a bulldog in the courtroom because the defense certainly is.
the fear of lawsuits hanging over his head would hand every case to the defense.

 
BUGEYE. Good post Sir. POWDERMAN. 

[dukkillr]

A couple of points.  A defense counsel is required, by the Sixth Amendment, to vigoursly defend his client.  Some of you might have heard the story of the British soldiers who fired on unarmed colonials at the "Boston Massacre".  You might or might not remember that 6 of 8 soldiers were acquitted at trial.  You might even remember that slimy lawyer who defended them against his own country.  That dishonest, America hating, British sympathizing, truth distorting, ...  ... John Adams?  (Yes, that John Adams.)  Turns out he knew something about Amendments and rights, and freedom, and impartial justice...  huh...
 
But the oath of a prosecutor is completely different.  They are NOT charged with a duty to "vigoursly prosecute" a defendant.  They are charged with upholding justice.  If you think they are the same, you are simply, catastrophically, willfully, ignorant.  Upholding justice means allowing the evidence to be heard, and as is the case with exonerations all over the country, providing evidence to the defense that may not help the state's case.  Read "Brady v. Maryland" for more information.  But here's the thing, the state's case is not to win a conviction, it's to serve justice.  If they are witholding evidence they are not serving justice.
 
But Bugeye is partially right.  It would be difficult to make these types of calls in an environment where civil liability hangs on every decision.  I think there should be a standard that is more encompassing, or rather an individual application of the stated rule.  It is difficult or impossible to prove that a largely political DA has created an environment below him where the ethical rules are being ignored.  I would suggest that in a case where the individual prosecutor showed, "deliberate indifference" that they should be held liable.  And that should a pattern of similar cases come from the same office, then the DA would be called upon to defend himself.  Merely making a mistake is not the same as "deliberate indifference".  The stakes are high, people's lives and freedoms are at stake.  It's a serious burden, but it's a serious situation.
 
Ultimately the real impact is that if there is not penalty to a lawyer who fails to follow requirements Brady v Maryland it's hard to imagine why they would, beyond personal character.  If you are going to leave justice up to the personal character of those who perform it, I'm going to be worried about justice, and about your personal commitment to it.
 
Just a quick story from KC.  A guy was convicted of molesting his step daughter and sentenced to 50 years in prison.  Well, turns out the investigator and the wife of the guy were having an affair, and they conspired to get the husband thrown in jail.  The DA knew of the relationship between the two, but said nothing to the defense or the judge.  Guy can't beat a bad case against him where the evidence has been fabricated, who could?  The only thing that saved him was that his attorneys were smart and hard working, and after conviction they discovered the relationship on their own.  Ultimately he was freed, exonerated, and won a civil judgement, but he still spent several years of his life in jail.  Now tell me, how do you serve justice to this guy?  When a cop, an angry lying wife, and a DA conspire to remove your freedom and hide the evidence that they are doing so? 
 
http://www.kmbc.com/news/27576872/detail.html

[lakota]

I have to side with Yellowtail here. This sounds like pure bravo sierra. It seems there are more than a few prosecutors out there who are out to make a name for themselves and some will do that no matter what it takes and at whomever expense it is at. Also aren't county prosecutors elected? There is another black mark against them. I harbor a deep distrust for any elected official.

[yellowtail3]

BUGEYE - Good reply, and excellent justification.

No, it was poor reply, with EXTREMELY POOR 'justification'


The job as another poster pointed out - the job of prosecutor is to do justice, within the law. That does not mean... "well, he didn't do THIS, but he's done other things, and I can convict him on this if I withhold exculpatory evidence, so he deserves it anyways..." that is simply wrong. But it gets done.
Prosecutors who know of evidence that would indicate defendant isn't guilty, have a duty to share this with defense. Sometimes they do not. This is wrong.
Everyone reading this forum ought to be bothered by the idea of prosecutors getting a free pass.

[BUGEYE]

kinda off topic, but my chance to brag.
in 07 and 08 my daughter was on the national champion high school mock trial teams.
in the 08 trial, she got to argue the case in front of the Delaware supreme court.
the entire court presided over the trial. what an honor.

yellowtail3, you would have bad guys running around everywhere.

[powderman]

But the oath of a prosecutor is completely different.  They are NOT charged with a duty to "vigoursly prosecute" a defendant.  They are charged with upholding justice. 
 
 
On that, I agree. Yes, there are some unscrupulous prosecuters but I believe more evidence is suppressed by high paid defense attys. I can't remember all the times that scum have been put back on the street because hard evidence was disallowed by judges pushed by big shot defense attys. After they are released jurors would say, WE didn't know that, why weren't we told?? ALL evidence should be presented in a case, thats why we have juries to sort out the truth from the lies. Everything should be on the table so a jury can make the right decisions. Only then can justice be served. In reality, justice is rarely  served anymore, only whats legal prevails. In most cases right and wrong mean very little. POWDERMAN. 

[nw_hunter]

From Duk:

Just a quick story from KC.  A guy was convicted of molesting his step daughter and sentenced to 50 years in prison.  Well, turns out the investigator and the wife of the guy were having an affair, and they conspired to get the husband thrown in jail.  The DA knew of the relationship between the two, but said nothing to the defense or the judge.  Guy can't beat a bad case against him where the evidence has been fabricated, who could?  The only thing that saved him was that his attorneys were smart and hard working, and after conviction they discovered the relationship on their own.  Ultimately he was freed, exonerated, and won a civil judgement, but he still spent several years of his life in jail.  Now tell me, how do you serve justice to this guy?  When a cop, an angry lying wife, and a DA conspire to remove your freedom and hide the evidence that they are doing so? 


*********************************************************************
No way to serve justice to him! They cannot give him back those years taken.
There has to be a way to keep these Prosecutors from doing this to people!


Angela J. Davis, Former Director of Washington DC Public Defender Service, wrote a book addressing this very thing.The theme of the book is, the power of prosecutors is considerable and is presented persuasively. She shows  over and over and gives examples that prosecutors possess the means to do whatever they please without fear of punishment.


While working with the  Public Defender Service, Davis says.......Quote, (“I noticed that prosecutors held almost all of the cards, and that they seemed to deal them as they saw fit. Although some saw themselves as ministers of justice and measured their decisions carefully, very few were humbled by the power they held. Most wanted to win every case, and winning meant getting a conviction.”) Note! The POWER they hold! Most of them are holding these offices to springboard to higher political heights, or elite private practices.
Without some form of accountability, how do we guarantee justice for anyone?

[scootrd]

A couple of points.  A defense counsel is required, by the Sixth Amendment, to vigoursly defend his client.  Some of you might have heard the story of the British soldiers who fired on unarmed colonials at the "Boston Massacre".  You might or might not remember that 6 of 8 soldiers were acquitted at trial.  You might even remember that slimy lawyer who defended them against his own country.  That dishonest, America hating, British sympathizing, truth distorting, ...  ... John Adams?  (Yes, that John Adams.)  Turns out he knew something about Amendments and rights, and freedom, and impartial justice...  huh...
 
But the oath of a prosecutor is completely different.  They are NOT charged with a duty to "vigoursly prosecute" a defendant.  They are charged with upholding justice.  If you think they are the same, you are simply, catastrophically, willfully, ignorant.  Upholding justice means allowing the evidence to be heard, and as is the case with exonerations all over the country, providing evidence to the defense that may not help the state's case.  Read "Brady v. Maryland" for more information.  But here's the thing, the state's case is not to win a conviction, it's to serve justice.  If they are witholding evidence they are not serving justice.

Ok this settles it when choosing up sides for the next debate Dukkillr is on my side. First dibs !!

Seriously , excellent post and counterpoint.
 had all but forgot about ol' John Adams defending until you mentioned it here again.

John Adams did indeed defended Captain Preston in the subsequent murder trial . Then went on to defend the 8 soldiers in a separate trial weeks later for the events surrounding the Boston Massacre.. He was assisted by Josiah Quincy.  For those that don't recognize his name but have been to Boston and visited the Faneuil Hall area  , Quincy Market is named after his prominent family.

But now this begs the question , If John Adams can defend a Captain and eight soldiers in a civilian court , why cant the Guantanamo detainees be defended in a civilian court as well?

[yellowtail3]

Ok this settles it when choosing up sides for the next debate Dukkillr is on my side. First dibs !! Seriously , excellent post and counterpoint.

Yep.

But now this begs the question , If John Adams can defend a Captain and eight soldiers in a civilian court , why cant the Guantanamo detainees be defended in a civilian court as well?

I don't know; may be concern that this will interfere with desired outcome. Anyhow...

But the oath of a prosecutor is completely different.  They are NOT charged with a duty to "vigoursly prosecute" a defendant.  They are charged with upholding justice.  If you think they are the same, you are simply, catastrophically, willfully, ignorant.

Lot of that going around, here...

[twoshooter]

A couple of quick observations. First regarding Guantanamo, that is a thorny issue. First, as far as I am concerned, only persons wilfully and legally in the US and acting on individual initiative could or should be charged with a crime. All persons whom have never been part of, do not have allegiance to, are not receiving benefits from, the US of A, what ever they do that is not directed at a specific individual or corporation, for a specific purpose, is an act of WAR. You can hold enemy combatants indefinitely, until hostilities cease. You CANNOT "try" them for crimes, because they did not commit any. If you did, then Somalia pirates would and should be able to try US service men for interference with their piracy efforts in waters they claim. It is the same principal, if you kill a rival drug dealer in an ally you are a murderer, if you piloted the Enola Gay and killed 100,000+ mostly civilian Japanese in an instant, you are a national hero. My father was in the fleet preparing to invade Japan when it dropped, and the odds are that if they had not, I would not be here to write this. You have to look at circumstances.
     Likewise, my daughter is a Deputy Felony Prosecutor in a very high crime area, one older brother is an attorney also, and her other brother was a policeman for 12 years. The legal system is very arcane and convoluted. There IS NO "JUSTICE" system in the US, or probably anywhere else outside of some primitive tribal areas. There is a system of public security and retribution. If you are assaulted and battered, the PUBLIC prosecutes the perpetrator, and puts him/ her in jail if convicted. You got hurt. maybe you lost some teeth, some range of motion, have scars etc. Are they all removed by the legal system? No. Are you restored to your previous condition? No. Do you get to go beat the hell out of the person that did it to you? No. If he is fined, who gets the money? The government.  The tax payers ( of whom you are probably one ) foot the bill, and do and for what? To keep someone in a cage, to house , feed, clothe, provide medical care for that individual. To pay cops, court reporters, attorneys, judges, baliffs, probation & parole officers. ALL MAKE MONEY, except YOU.
IF there were actually justice, there would be an inquiry as to first of all, what happened. Who was at fault. Maybe you were an A--- and somebody should have kicked the snot out of you. If you were not, and the other party WAS the bad guy, they would either tie him up and you get to beat the he-- out of him, or hire some WWF or Ultimate cage fighting  guy to do it for you. Then you let him go. He limps on his own to the doctor/ dentist/ chiropractor . Nobody pays for anything. THAT, is justice. The legal system is just that, s SYSTEM set up for the powers that be to exert control over and squeeze money out of the general population, and force them at the same time into believing it is somehow noble and morally superior.
    On the other hand, you have plea barganing out the wazoo to save time and money because they cannot possibly afford the time and money to try every case. Then there are the cases where you cannot let the facts of previous evidence in. So what if the guys last 3 wives all had accidental deaths within a month of the wedding, does not have bearing on this case. It is a nightmare with no waking.

    We do need some systematic approach to regulate conflict between individuals that prevents them from endangering the public at large, but what we have has morphed into a behemouth  system that micromanages every facet of everyday of our lives. As example, one of the hottest controversies in a major local St Louis suburb was the city council passing ordinances to prohibit local residents from shooting squirrels that were damaging his home with a PELLET gun. He would face large fines and confiscation of property (pellet gun), and maybe short term incarceration if he does. Justice? I guess if there was a better system, someone would have thought of it. If this is as good as it gets, it SUCKS.

[scootrd]

But now this begs the question , If John Adams can defend a Captain and eight soldiers in a civilian court , why cant the Guantanamo detainees be defended in a civilian court as well?

Tribunalss or military hearings are a little different than civilian courts, because everybody involved in the process is on the same team.
 
..TM7

Yep ... one small change in your post.

Tribunalss or military hearings are a little  ALOT different than civilian courts, because everybody involved in the process is on the same team.

Military commissions
do not provide for peremptory challenge of the potential members.
do not provide for challenge for cause of the presiding officer.
do not ensure that the accused can confront all witnesses against him.
do not permit civilian defense counsel to be present at all sessions of the commission.
do not provide for equal requirements and treatment of civilian attorneys, whether they are prosecutors or defense counsel.
do not apply double jeopardy laws.
do not provide that the Rules of Evidence or their equivalent apply.
do not exclude unreliable evidence, such as unsworn statements.
do not prohibit members of a commission from discussing a case until the evidence is closed and deliberations occur.


CRIMES: Defined by the Defense Department - MILITARY COMMISSION
CRIMES: Defined by Congress and state legislatures -FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT

PRESIDING OFFICIAL: A military lawyer, called a judge advocate, who is appointed and acts as a member the panel. MILITARY COMMISSION
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: A federal judge, nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate and appointed for life.-FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT

DELIBERATORS: A panel of three to seven military officers. -MILITARY COMMISSION
DELIBERATORS:  A jury of 12 civilians, randomly drawn from voter lists, sometimes combined with driver lists. The lawyer for the accused can eliminate potential jurors. - FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT

DEFENSE : Appointed by the defense secretary or someone he names as the appointing authority. -MILITARY COMMISSION
DEFENSE: The Constitution requires that the judge appoint a defense attorney if the accused cannot afford one. - FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT

RULES OF EVIDENCE: A military lawyer is assigned to represent the accused, who can hire a civilian lawyer as well. The civilian lawyer could be barred from sensitive proceedings and evidence. The presiding official (Lawyer) officer decides whether admit or exclude evidence. There are rules governing suppression of evidence. - MILITARY COMMISSION
RULES OF EVIDENCE: Federal rules and case law exclude certain types of evidence, such as hearsay and illegally obtained statements. FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT

SECRECY: The presiding officer (Lawyer) has broad discretion to close the proceedings. - MILITARY COMMISSION
SECRECY: The Constitution guarantees a public trial, except in certain cases, normally involving children. FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT

DECISIONS: Conviction and sentencing require a two thirds vote. -MILITARY COMMISSION
DECISIONS: Must be unanimous in conviction and sentencing. - FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT

DEATH SENTENCE: Only by unanimous vote of a commission of seven members. -MILITARY COMMISSION
DEATH SENTENCE: As in all sentencing, the jury 12 members must be unanimous. - FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT

RIGHT OF APPEAL: The accused cannot appeal to a civilian court. A review panel of three military officers or commissioned civilians, including judge, can recommend new proceedings. -MILITARY COMMISSION
RIGHT OF APPEAL:  The accused has the right to appeal the conviction or sentence to a higher (appellate) court. - FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT

Semper Fi

[williamlayton]

Iwill say this again---and again, if necessary.
I would rather 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted.
If you got the goods, then you got the goods.
Blessings