Replies

Having been the foreman on two juries where it quickly became evident the the police were either lying about what they saw the defendant do, or completely incompetent, I'm afraid I would need a little additional proof.

If that's your standard -- no one would ever get convicted. Because the forensic "expert" (an employee of the police department) testifying as to if the fingerprints match or not could also be lying or completely incompetent. At some point you have to take the tin-foil hat off.

April 15, 2003

WASHINGTON (AP) - Reformed after controversy in the mid-1990s, the FBI crime lab is dealing with new wrongdoing by employees that has opened the door for challenges of the lab's science in scores of cases involving DNA and bullet analysis, internal documents show.

One FBI lab scientist, who connected suspects to bullets through lead analysis, has been indicted after admitting she gave false testimony, and a technician has resigned while under investigation for alleged improper testing of more than 100 DNA samples, according to records and interviews. http://www.truthinjustice.org/FBI-crime-lab.htm

You need to be a bit more cautious about who and when to believe them yourself, IMO.

"Having been the foreman on two juries where it quickly became evident the the police were either lying about what they saw the defendant do, or completely incompetent, I'm afraid I would need a little additional proof."

"If that's your standard -- no one would ever get convicted. Because the forensic "expert" (an employee of the police department) testifying as to if the fingerprints match or not could also be lying or completely incompetent. At some point you have to take the tin-foil hat off."

Hah!

In one case here in Houston, two white cops arrested a black guy for possession of crack cocaine outside a known crackhouse. The guy had been in jail for almost ten months because he was unable to make the $100,000 bail.

The two officers said that they had been driving by the house a little after 10pm and said that when the defendant saw them, he threw something underneath the house. (This was what is known as a "rowhouse" which is built 18" to 24" off the ground on concrete blocks.

They said the defendant was about 25' away and they were able to see this by the street light in front of the house. They also said that some other people were sitting on the front porch and on the front steps that led straight up into the house.

When they stopped and approached the house, everyone ran away except the defendant. They did not try to chase any one. After looking under the house, they said they found a ziplock baggie with about 30 rocks of crack cocaine and a small .25 caliber automatic.

This was the prosecution's case.

The defense's case put a little different light on things.

From photos of the scene, the defense showed that the defendant would have had to standing almost 75' from the street to throw the crack and the gun where the cops said they found them. The defense also showed from pictures and light company records that there was no streetlamp at that location and never had been.

There was also no light on the front of the house. The only light would have been coming thru the open front door.

The defense also showed that there never was a front porch on the house. There were overgrown rose bushes where the porch would have been. In addition, the steps did not go straight up into the house, but came up from the side and you took a left turn into the house. Due to other plants and a small trellis, it was obvious that this was also nothing new.

The house was also not a "known" crackhouse. According to police records there had been no drug arrests on the entire block for at least the last 10 years.

There were no fingerprints on the gun. They apparently never checked the bullets or the baggie.

In short, nothing to actually connect the defendant to the items.

The defendant had no record of any kind. He held a good job as a warehouse supervisor for a company in a Houston suburb. He was almost finished with his Associates degree in Business at a local community college. He was married with one child, with one on the way. (who was born while he was in jail.)

While he was in jail, he lost his job and his house. His wife had to move in with her mother and go on welfare.

The only reason he was where he was arrested was that a co-worker had ask him to take the dockworker downtown to the city jail to pick up his brother who was bailing out on a DUI. The co-worker had ask him to stop at this address first so he could see a friend. The defendant did not know anyone at the scene.

This is the case we got as the jury. Our first vote was 11-1 to acquit. After 2 days we were a hung jury with the same vote. The lone holdout was a Baptist preacher whose teenage daughter had gotten involved with drugs. He told the jury during deliberations that if the police arrested you, you were probably guilty.

After the trial was over, I saw the prosecutor yelling at the two cops in a side hallway.

So put your tinfoil hat on and tell me how you would have voted in this case.

BTW my late father retired as a Captain after 23 years on a large city police department and my best friend is a retired cop.