Posted on 09/10/2016 5:00:35 PM PDT by Theoria
Here is the case of a missing paragraph that turned into a trap door that dropped a man into prison.
The paragraph vanished from a police report in a Brooklyn criminal case, but essential information has been hidden from people accused of crimes in courthouses across the country. Even though failing to share exculpatory information is among the most serious breaches of ethics and law for the police and prosecutors, there is little personal or institutional accountability for such tactics.
In 2010, to convict a man named Wayne Martin of killing two people during a stickup of a Brooklyn tire repair shop, someone in law enforcement went to the trouble of blanking out a paragraph in a homicide report.
The erased portion said that a witness had identified someone other than Mr. Martin as the gunman.
In still another report, another witness also told detectives that it was not Mr. Martin who had done the shooting.
Neither of these two reports made it into the hands of Mr. Martin or his defense lawyers before he was tried. Convicted of the double homicide, he was sentenced to life without parole.
On Wednesday, Ken Thompson, the Brooklyn district attorney, moved to dismiss all charges against Mr. Martin, as The Daily News reported. Prodded by Mr. Martin’s own legal filings from prison, and by his lawyer, James D. Henning, the district attorney’s office had dug into the case files and found the two documents.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So the prosecution is required to share exculpatory evidence. Is the defense required to share damning evidence?
Actually, yes, that is why a defense attorney doesn’t ask certain questions. He can’t give client/lawyer confidential information. However, if he comes into physical evidence, he is required to disclose it as an agent of the court.
It’s a sad change over the past 20 years or so. Parents used to tell their kids that the police are there to help you; now the best advice is that the police are not your friend — they are there to arrest somebody.
Kevin Williamson in National Review wrote an excellent column a year or so ago. Cops are not the good guys. We naturally stand for law and order. Most of the big cities are run by guess who?
It’s a sad change over the past 20 years or so.
Agreed. Between this and civil forfeiture, my confidence in the justice system has been demolished. I used to be for the death penalty, but I no longer trust the system to apply it fairly. The police are in it to arrest people and prosecutors are in it to convict them. Actual guilt is not something they care about. More and more, it makes me ashamed of our system.
Prosecutors, judges, and cops who withhold evidence, phony up cases and so on should receive the same penalty the innocent suspect would have received if found guilty.
I don’t approve of illegal activity to convict someone.
That being said, our system is as decent to suspects as any other system in the world.
The NYT is great about criticizing, but it sure is short on respect for our system overall.
No.
“Prosecutors, judges, and cops who withhold evidence, phony up cases and so on should receive the same penalty the innocent suspect would have received if found guilty.”
There was a DA in Williamson County, Texas that did not disclose that there was a bloody bandana at a crime scene and then for years fought against DNA testing of the bloody bandana.
The victim’s husband was convicted of the murder and spend 25 years in prison.
Meanwhile the real killer walked the streets, murdered again, all the while an innocent man sat in prison. primarily due to the fact that the DA withheld evidence.
The DA was convicted of “criminal contempt” and spent 10 days in jail.
Agreed. And civil forfeiture needs to end. They can take your stuff only if you are convicted. No more of this “United States of America vs $5,234.87 and 3 pairs of pink socks” crap.
There are prosecutors that have withheld evidence in murder cases, sent innocent people to prison and by not pursuing the real killer, let that killer murder other people.
They do that largely with no consequence to themselves, but only consequence to the wrongly convicted and the tax payers who end up writing the wrongly convicted a very big check.
Police are not perfect. You find crooks there too.
I support taking action against them, if there is a solid case.
They shouldn’t get away with it, and I don’t want them to.
agreed, due process only
spaklite2: “Is the defense required to share damning evidence?”
rstrahan: ^^Actually, yes, that is why a defense attorney doesn’t ask certain questions.”
Correct answer - no, the defence is under no obligation to “share damning information”, it is the prosecution’s responsibility to make their own case.
The reason why a defence attorney does not ask certain questions is to avoid knowingly suborning perjury.
“More and more, it makes me ashamed of our system.”
Twenty years ago a lawyer laughed in my face when I proposed “right and wrong” as reasons to do something.
I experienced the very same.Scumbags one and all.
That being said, our system is as decent to suspects as any other system in the world.
Between those two sentences lies the "dichotomy rub" - the "system" is designed to presume that it is better to let a hundred guilty folks go free than to convict even one innocent. It is the corrupt within said system that have twisted it beyond recognition to many. Venal Men are the weak link in the system and the durability of the Constitution upon which the system relies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.