American Justice

[AngusJS]

A man sits on death row for 14 years, but is exonerated weeks before his execution by evidence that prosecutors hid from the defense (he had the wrong blood type, and eye-witness testimony didn't match his description).

He is freed, and rightly sues the New Orleans district attorney's office. His case goes to the Supreme Court - where in a 5-4 ruling, the conservative justices decide against him. He gets nothing, and the prosecutors get off scot free.

:damn:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/30/nation/la-na-court-prosecutors-20110330

In the past, the high court has absolved trial prosecutors from any and all liability for the cases they bring to court.Wow. Just wow.

I propose a new law: any prosecutor or policeman who knowingly withholds or tampers with evidence in a capital case will be charged with attempted murder, which will carry a minimum sentence of 20 years. Any prosecutor or policeman who does so in a capital case in which an innocent man is executed, will be charged with first degree murder, carrying a life sentence.

And again, why do we have the death penalty? If the system is this broken, should we really be playing with innocent people's lives?

:damn:

[Gargamel]

The system isn't broken, the people in it are.

This is a case in point. The system didn't fail this guy, the people who were running that part of the system did. Eventually the system won out and this man was freed. The system works, you just have to have trustworthy people in it.

EDIT:

Apparently this ruling is based on some technical point in the law, and it seems that was the sticking point in the case. The Justices ruled that they did not prove a consistent pattern. It was a close vote on the ruling, so it shows how middle of the road the subject was for them. These justices have to rule yes or no (they can abstain), and so sometimes they are forced to make tough decisions, and they leaned this way this time.

[AngusJS]

An innocent man sat on death row for 14 years. The system failed him. It just didn't fail him quite as much as it could have, because he was lucky.

I'd say it's broken. Thompson had to hire a private detective to find that evidence in the first place.

And in many parts of the country, police routinely destroy "old" evidence which could be used to exonerate someone to free up space. Thompson is lucky that wasn't the case in New Orleans. If it was, he very likely would have been killed.

[Platapus]

If you read the court's opinion, what they are saying is that this person can't sue the DA's office. He can still go after the individual prosecutor.

But in any case, I think this is BS. It only goes to show that there is little difference between an ADA and a defense attorney. Both will lie and pervert justice in order to further their careers.

Any belief that an ADA is "out for justice" or "on our side" is sophistry. :nope:

Forget any civil suit, if it is demonstrated that an ADA withheld evidence, there should be criminal charges, and if found guilty the ADA needs to go to prison.

People who lie in court need to be punished or our legal system won't work.

One of our most precious rights is not our freedom of speech, nor our freedom to arm bears. These are small spuds.

Our most precious right is the right to due process. Due process is what keeps the government from enslaving the citizens. Any ADA who violates the concept of Due Process needs to be punished. I can think of no greater crime against a citizen then to deny them due process.

I got a wacky idea. How about requiring the prosecutor and the defense attorney to be under oath during court trials.

It is kinda strange that everyone else who talks in court has to be under oath but not the attorneys? Hell, I even want the judge to be under oath.

Cases like this make me very angry and scared at the same time.

An innocent man imprisoned because an ADA was more concerned with his/her conviction ratio than justice.

I fear ADAs more then I fear defense attorneys.

[CaptainHaplo]

How about requiring the prosecutor and the defense attorney to be under oath during court trials.

Can't do it. I can see the prosecutor under oath - he needs to be presenting as honest as a case as he can. While it pains me to say it - a defense attorney under oath would often rob his client of his right to the "reasonable defense" he is entitled to. Many times a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, yet under the law, is obligated to try and negate the truth he knows.

No, I don't think a lie is ok - but I also can see where situations could arise where no defense attorney in the world could defend someone - removing one of the critical protections that all citizens enjoy when under a judicial proceeding - the right to effective counsel.

[Buddahaid]

Can't do it. I can see the prosecutor under oath - he needs to be presenting as honest as a case as he can. While it pains me to say it - a defense attorney under oath would often rob his client of his right to the "reasonable defense" he is entitled to. Many times a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, yet under the law, is obligated to try and negate the truth he knows.

No, I don't think a lie is ok - but I also can see where situations could arise where no defense attorney in the world could defend someone - removing one of the critical protections that all citizens enjoy when under a judicial proceeding - the right to effective counsel.

Sure it would work. The defense is only representing the defendnts lies. The prosecution may represent the evidence collectors lies.

[MaddogK]

Disgusting, SCOTUS seems to think hiding evidence to ensure a conviction was a 'mistake' ? How much more deliberate would it need to be to sway Thomas' opinion ?

This system IS broken, the DA's office violated Thompsons right to due process and a fair trial, and SCOTUS sides with the prosecutors ?

I'm ashamed for America.

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm ashamed for America.

I become more ashamed for and of America every day. Been that way for about 15 years.

[The Third Man]

One must always ask the judge during jury selection if nulification will be explained and discussed. If the answer is no, demand it. It comes down to 'We the People', not we the lawyers who have become judges.