Girl's killer says rights violated during trial

The Seattle Times ^ | Tuesday, March 7, 2006 | Peter Lewis

[Brytani]

"Assistant State Attorney General Greg Rosen dismissed Engelhard's allegations as "baseless."

AllegationS as baseless. For all you know the defense attorney could have easily bribed an inmate to state he'd been paid to testify - that has happened in the past.

However, without solid proof I'll take the word of the prosecutor over a activist defense attorney and a convicted, DNA evidenced proven, murderer.

[Brytani]

I follow closely cases of those who have been exonerated by DNA evidence. Guess what, in the majority of those cases the person was convicted on the basis of witness testimony.

Eye witness testimony is greatly unreliable, whereas DNA testing is quite reliable.

While prosscrutorial misconduct has happened (bad apples in any bunch you look at) the majority of wrongful convictions are not because of misconduct or deliberate falsification of evidence by the justice department.

[Idisarthur]

I'm always baffled... in our quest for perfect justice some victims are "Twice" or "Thrice" victims by the courts.

How many innocent people are twice victims compared to innocent, 'accused criminals', wrongly convicted.

300,000 "twice victims" for every 1 wrongly convicted criminal.

That must be perfect justice.

Are we proud of ourselves?

[Brytani]

Yep yep yet, those evil cops and prosecutors who's very job it is to lie and railroad poor innocent people into prison.

After all, we have absolutely no crime in this country. Nobody is guilty of anything. People aren't murdered ever. My job, let's open up the prisons and let everyone out. After all, they are only there because the cops lie.

[parsifal]

My problem with Gitmo is that we choose to treat the terorists as criminals. This is war and I think they should be treated as POW's, and if their actions warrant it, summarily executed.

Whatever, torturing people is wrong. We are a sick society for tolerating it.

parsy, the disgusted.

[parsifal]

BS. Go ahead and look up "testilying" on the net. Read a few of those articles and then get back with me.

parsy, who is trying to teach you something here.

[Brytani]

Hate to tell you this but with over 20 years of experience in the field of criminal justice, you can't teach me anything.

Nice try though.

[parsifal]

Well, I am happy to hear that you know everything and don't need to widen your horizons. Happily, I can still learn. I have a little experience in the field, too. Before I got that experience, I tended to believe pretty much like you do now. I am glad that I did not have as high an opinion of myself.

parsy, the meek and humble (who ain't afraid to learn something new.)

[irishtenor]

***Jonathan Lee Gentry, 48, who has been on death row longer than any inmate now in the state's prison system***

There is the problem right there.

[Sloth]

Criminals do not give up their rights.

Of course they do. Of course, we have to err on the side of caution until we can confidently establish that they actually committed the crime, but the rights are waived at the time the crime occurs.

[parsifal]

Which right(s) does an "accused" criminal give up other than perhaps "no bail." or not leaving the county?

parsy, the curious.

[Sloth]

You didn't say 'accused' in what I quoted. We're talking about criminals -- i.e., those who commit crimes.

[parsifal]

Convicted criminals do lose a lot of their rights. They do not lose the right to appeal their conviction. My experience with cops and prosecutors and criminals is such that I do not automatically assume the criminal is guilty, the cops right, and the prosecutors noble.

parsy, who may be jaded.

[Brytani]

Unlike you, I do not automatically believe the word of a convicted felon and his defense attorney over the words of the people associated with his arrest, trial and conviction.

A defense attorneys job is to muddy the waters, to come up wwith grand explinations, regarless of merit and to taint in the mind of a single juror or judge that their client is innocent. Glad you feel they are such a noble breed that their word is paramount while those who do work in the field of criminal justice are a bunch of liars.

[connectthedots]

I didn't say the guy was innocent. In fact, I think he is guilty. The only issue I have addressed is the denial of his constitutional right to due process.

I read another article, since my last post - in a local paper (I'll try to find a link) - regarding his trial that sheds some light on the misconduct of the prosecutor. The DNA evidence, available at the time of the trial, was not sophisticated enough (very small quantities) to do a test. In other words, the prosecutor knew a conviction without the illegally procured testimony was a real possibility. That's why he did it.

How would you feel if you were convicted of a crime based on testimony obtained illegally in violation of your constitutional rights and you knew you were innocent?

You say you trust a prosecutor more than a defense attorney? While there are a lot of scummy defense attorneys, there is at least one scummy prosecutor for every scummy criminal defense attorney.

[RebekahT]

You don't have such a high opinion of yourself yet you sign each post by describing yourself in a good way...Interesting. Guess there are some weird ones in Arkansas (I'll keep an eye out for you).

Anyway, although prosecutorial misconduct does sometimes occur, a convicted murdered has nothing to lose by making such accusations against the police. They throw mud at a wall, hoping something will stick. He has already been convicted in a court of law where the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. We should be cautious in believing him, most convicted murderers are lying when they claim innocence.

[connectthedots]

Here is an article about a relatively famous trial within the legal profession:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/earprint23.shtml

What this article doesn't mention is that the prosecutor paid inmate witnesses and granted them extra favors in exchange for their testimony. The prosecutor knew it was illegal to do so at the time and it was discovered only because the defense attorney in the second trial deposed those inmate witnesses.

When those witnesses were questioned during the trial, they asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

How do I know? I was at the trial. The judge is hopelessly corrupt and the prosecutor is equally corrupt; beyond all redemption.

This guy was clearly innocent, but the prosecutor didn't care. The only thing he cared about was getting a conviction, even if it was the wrong man.

The jurors were questioned after the mistrial and expressed considerable outrage with the conduct of the prosecutor and basically said they couldn't believe they would even try the case without any evidence. They also expressed disgust with the use of illegally procured testimony.

By the way, the inmate witness was in prison for child sex crimes.

How would you like to be convicted by 'evidence' like this?

[RebekahT]

You seem a little paranoid. Although things such as what you described do happen from time to time, they are rare and shouldn't lead us to question each prosecutor in every case he prosecutes (not to mention believe every convicted felon in the pen). Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[connectthedots]

When it comes to the Clark County prosecutor and Judge Harris, I have absolute proof of their corruption.

[Brytani]

You say you trust a prosecutor more than a defense attorney? While there are a lot of scummy defense attorneys, there is at least one scummy prosecutor for every scummy criminal defense attorney.

---

If it can be proved that a prosecutor knowingly tainted evidence or or presented knowingly untruthful testimony during a trial, then that prosecutor should be disbarred and face prison time.

However, are we going to apply that standard to lying defense attorneys?

How about the dozens of defense attorney's who worked to save the life of Roger Keith Coleman? Ones who wasted the courts time and tax payer money attempting to taint the evidence against Coleman and win his release or at least to have Coleman's sentence reduced to life with the possibility of parole?

Btw, DNA testing after his execution proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, his guilt of rape and murder. I'm sure not hearing calls to remove the heads of his defense attorneys who attempted to set a killer free to stalk society again. How about it? Shouldn't we go after the defense side? Or is this loathing reserved solely for prosecutors and cops?