ACW Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/15/AR2007071501250_pf.html :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 17, 2007 Author Share Posted July 17, 2007 Bump. This is a travesty. Wasn't Genarlow Wilson also Georgian? Great state :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 In my best Guiness commercial voice: "Brilliant!" :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I think this is the second case I've seen this week where some guy's been on Death Row for over a decade, the case seems to be falling apart, the prosecution's fighting madly to execute the guy anyway, and to keep all of the new evidence covered up, . . . And evidence is coming out that points at the guy who fingered the guy who's on Death Row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 17, 2007 Author Share Posted July 17, 2007 Some good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsOrlando Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 This is just more evidence that eye witness testimony is overrated and not trustworthy, especially over lenghty distances and periods of time. I think it's something like anymore than 60 feet from an event and you won't have an accurate picture of what happened and your mind fills in the blanks. I can't quite remember but I read a study on memory back in college detailing eye witness testimony and its rather interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiLfan Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 It seems like the homeless man who was being pistol whipped would be the best eye witness...whoever was beating him up was the one who shot the police officer. But the article doesn't really say anything about what the homeless man saw, or if he pointed the finger at Coles or Davis or was one of the witnesses who recanted. All the other eye witness accounts and recantations don't mean a whole lot to me since, as another poster said, its not all that reliable unless you're real close up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 This is just more evidence that eye witness testimony is overrated and not trustworthy, especially over lenghty distances and periods of time. I think it's something like anymore than 60 feet from an event and you won't have an accurate picture of what happened and your mind fills in the blanks. I can't quite remember but I read a study on memory back in college detailing eye witness testimony and its rather interesting. I agree with your statement and have listened to advocates of that position. It's often better to have a good amount of circumstantial evidence than it is to have a single eyewitness account, regardless of how credible the eyewitness is. Imagine this scenario: The Maryland State's Attorney's Convention is having their saturday night banquet. All of a sudden, a man busts into the banquet room and jumps on the stage, yells "I am Elvis Presley", sings the national anthem, and then runs out. The guests are then informed that they are part of a sociological experiment involving the reliability of eyewitness testimony. They are all asked to write down a physical description of the crazy individual claiming to be Elvis. How many different descriptions do you think they get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jthor99 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 The sad thing is Police pressure still goes on today. The BS they pressure you into. Everyone should just take the Mafia stand and not say anything. I've only had one minor run in with teh law and my buddy got popped for a dime bag or osmething stupid they told me if i didnt tell them where they got it they would charge me also. i told them that i didnt know anything (because i honestly at the time didnt) and told them i wasnt going to say anything. I was told all night that i would be sittiing in jail. Less than 2 hours later i was out and my parents wanted to hire a lawyer to do something about how they pressured me i just declined because i knew the cops would change there stories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 the prosecution's fighting madly to execute the guy anyway, and to keep all of the new evidence covered up, . . . i often wonder about DAs who do that. is it about just about the W/L record? i always been a proponent of you have to be 200% sure that a person on death row did the crime. you can always overturn life in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 The sad thing is Police pressure still goes on today. The BS they pressure you into. Everyone should just take the Mafia stand and not say anything. I've only had one minor run in with teh law and my buddy got popped for a dime bag or osmething stupid they told me if i didnt tell them where they got it they would charge me also. i told them that i didnt know anything (because i honestly at the time didnt) and told them i wasnt going to say anything. I was told all night that i would be sittiing in jail. Less than 2 hours later i was out and my parents wanted to hire a lawyer to do something about how they pressured me i just declined because i knew the cops would change there stories very true. they are some suggesting mofos as well. i would ask for a lawyer asap if i ever get arrested. there was a show on discovery about a mentally challenge guy was pinned for a murder. long story short: the guy told his account (he didn't do it) but the cops told him they wouldn't let him out until he agreed to their version of the events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamaGoliath Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 It's good to hear about the 90 day stay of execution. It seems as though Georgia is more interested in making SOMEONE pay for the crime, rather than the actuall culprit. Hopefully, this case will get more and more exposure and force Georgia to do the right thing. I can't see how you can have the majority of witnesses recant their testimony, and it not be deemed relevant by the court! And to think that I entertained the thought of moving down there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Yet another example of why I don't trust prosecutors. They never fail to try and supress evidence or fight the inclusion of new evidence that could change the outcome. They NEVER seem to show as much effort in finding the truth as they do in getting a guilty verdict to pad their resume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Yet another example of why I don't trust prosecutors. They never fail to try and supress evidence or fight the inclusion of new evidence that could change the outcome. They NEVER seem to show as much effort in finding the truth as they do in getting a guilty verdict to pad their resume. No ****. The problem is, so many people don't understand their rights or cave to the pressure cops put them under. I know if I'm ever arrested for any reason, I'm a deaf ****ing mute until my lawyer shows up, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Yet another example of why I don't trust prosecutors. They never fail to try and supress evidence or fight the inclusion of new evidence that could change the outcome. They NEVER seem to show as much effort in finding the truth as they do in getting a guilty verdict to pad their resume. Using quite a few absolutes there, aren't you?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Using quite a few absolutes there, aren't you?? Yes I am which is no doubt unfair. I'm sure many DA's out there are great people. However DA's have way too damn much power and very few checks. I don't need anything more then that to completely distrust them but there is more. The system they are in rewards guilty verdicts. If they have political ambitions they are better off going for the most jail time and the biggest headlines all the time. Nobody wants to be the guy that convicted the innocent man right? So what better way to avoid that then to make sure he's never found innocent?! Also no one wants to be the guy that let the killer get off... so regardless of the persons guilt once they've charged a man their reputation is riding on the conviction. So what I see is a system in which prosecutors are motivated by career ambition to have a good "record" and aren't very heavily policed themselves. When is the last time you saw a DA go to prison for being less then up front with exculpatory evidence? The system holds pretty much everyone accountable but I hear the standards of evidence to nail a DA is extremely high to the point in which it almost never happens. They can destroy lives and know that more then likely the worst that will happen to them is losing their law license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Yes I am which is not doubt unfair. I'm sure many DA's out there are great people. However DA's have way too damn much power and very few checks. I don't need anything more then that to completely distrust them but I have much more reason then that. The system they are in rewards guilty verdicts. If they have political ambitions they are better off going for the most jail time and the biggest headlines all the time. So what I see is a system in which prosecutors are motivated by career ambition to have a good "record" and aren't very heavily policed themselves. When is the last time you saw a DA go to prison for being less then up front with exculpatory evidence? The system holds pretty much everyone accountable but I hear the standards of evidence to nail a DA is extremely high to the point in which it almost never happens. They can destroy lives and know that more then likely the worst that will happen to them is losing their law license. You're right, prosecutors are subject to the temptations you've enumerated above. Could the same be said for criminal defense attorneys? Are you aware that there is no "open discovery" requirement equivalent for defendants? When a prosecutor does not comply with open discovery requirements, he certainly stands a fair chance of getting away with it. If he does it often enough, he gets caught. The State's Attorney (or DA) is an elected official. If he has Assistants in his office abusing their position, it's his responsibility to deal with it. If it happens often enough, the public will be made aware (if they pay attention). Defense attorneys don't hesitate to make these matters public, and of course any serious discovery violations (especially bad faith violations) can result in acquittal. Unfortunately, many voters pay little attention to the State's Attorney election in their county/jurisidiction, so to say that these officials are subject to voter backlash wouldn't exactly be an all encompassing truth. There have been several recent, high profile cases of prosecutorial abuse in the news. These examples, while certainly disgusting and offensive to anyone in the legal profession, do not, in my opinion, characterize prosecutor's offices in general. As far as the standards for prosecutorial misconduct and prosecution thereof, it varies by state and I'm quite honestly not sure what it would be in MD/DC/VA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 The public will be made aware? You view this as as enough when you consider the effects of their misconduct? I do not. There are few things I find as disgusting as an innocent man wrongly convicted - it's worse then a guilty man going free because that is occuring automatically when you convict the wrong guy with the added bonus of a person rotting in jail that shouldn't. Like I said before, I've watched these guys fight DNA testing and new evidence... how many have gone to jail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbsheet Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Ah this is bullcrab. This guy had years and years on death row eating up tax money. He was found guilyt for killing a cop in a court of law. "Intiimadated" witnesses my butt. Sure the detectives can intimiadate you early on, but they aint' like the mafia. They can't gun you down in the italian market as you're picking up your prosciutto and manicotti. When they up on the stand, they could tell the truth. Now, 17 years later they change their mind? I call bullcarp! The problems with this country are that Defednents get waaay too many rights all the time and the victims get sheeted on. It's time to start reversing the chord a little bit around here and maybe we'll start to see a little less crime. I say fry the guy. He should have been processed dog food years ago. Unlike alot of bleeding heart invertebrates out there, it doesn't bother me if an innocent guy occaissonaly gets the wrack so long as it means punishing more of those who are actually guility rather than letting them go free becasuse of baloney technicaliteis. yip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 The public will be made aware? You view this as as enough when you consider the effects of their misconduct? I do not. No, I don't think it's enough. I'm simply stating that when the public is aware of an issue, they can respond and seek recourse through elections. Public awareness is only the initial step. Of course, there are civil causes of action available to go after what you might call a "rouge prosecutor." If you believe that there should be stiffer criminal penalties, that's a separate issue and it's one that may need to be examined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Unlike alot of bleeding heart invertebrates out there, it doesn't bother me if an innocent guy occaissonaly gets the wrack so long as it means punishing more of those who are actually guility rather than letting them go free becasuse of baloney technicaliteis. yip I was wondering when the tough guy caricature was going to chime in. Kill'em all *grunt* If you ever take a break from pretending to be a mans man try thinking about what frying the wrong guy means. Ah why pretend you'd ever figure it out, I'll just tell you: the real guy is getting away clean if you fry the wrong guy. So you see part of punishing more of the bad guys means making sure you actually got the bad guys. Having said all that - I hope you and all those that think like you end up becoming that occasional innocent guy. Where is karma when you need it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 No, I don't think it's enough. I'm simply stating that when the public is aware of an issue, they can respond and seek recourse through elections. Public awareness is only the initial step. Of course, there are civil causes of action available to go after what you might call a "rouge prosecutor." If you believe that there should be stiffer criminal penalties, that's a separate issue and it's one that may need to be examined. I wouldn't call it a rogue prosecutor. I'd call it business as usual. The reason I say this is simple - when DA are fighting against DNA testing to prove a convicts innocence... what is the reaction from the justice system? Are they surprised or outraged that someone would actually argue something so obviously terrible? No. It doesn't even surprise anyone. That reaction to obvious injustice leads me to the conclusion that this win at all costs mentality isn't rare at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbsheet Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I guess what I'm saying is, yo, that i'm willing to sacrifice a so-called "innocent guy" (who probably ain't really that inncoent anyways, or else why would he have been in that situation?) while letting one guilty go free as consequence, IF it means that I'm guaranteed getting the next 10,000 guilty guys. That ratio is acceptable, because its for the better good. Write up the occasional lost innocent numbnut to 'collateral damage', and its zall good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I can't see supporting a capital case on eye witness testimony alone. Eye Witnesses are notoriously bad. Look at the Mir Amal Kansi case that happend at CIA headquarters. They were close to the guy in broad day light and still got the discription wrong. To me they had better have hard evidence if they are going to put someone to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePreciating Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I guess what I'm saying is, yo, that i'm willing to sacrifice a so-called "innocent guy" (who probably ain't really that inncoent anyways, or else why would he have been in that situation?) while letting one guilty go free as consequence, IF it means that I'm guaranteed getting the next 10,000 guilty guys.That ratio is acceptable, because its for the better good. Write up the occasional lost innocent numbnut to 'collateral damage', and its zall good. The government's desire to punish the guilty should never outweigh its responsibility to protect the innocent. The "greater good" theory amounts to Utilitarianism, which holds very little moral water. See example: If there were a 7 year old girl (let's name her Susie) who was completely innocent, but it was found that the cure to cancer was to rape and murder little Susie, would you call her rape and murder justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.