Wrongful Convictions

[indago]

Journalist Mark Pratt wrote for The Associated Press 15 June 2016:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A man who spent 21 years in prison for a killing he says he didn't commit filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Wednesday against the city of Lynn as well as city and state police officers he accuses of framing him. Angel Echavarria was convicted of murder in 1996 in the shooting two years prior of Daniel Rodriguez in Lynn and sentenced to life in prison. ..."The evidence used to convict Angel Echevarria was invented out of whole cloth," attorney Steven Art said.

...The only eyewitness to the shooting, which took place in a known drug den, was the victim's brother, and he twice identified another man as the shooter...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article

A few million bux for the Plaintiff, and jail time for the Defendants would be in order...

 

[indago]

From The Associated Press 15 June 2016:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A former Texas death row inmate says he wants to tear up an agreement that dismissed his murder charge while protecting prosecutors in his case from any findings of misconduct.

Criminal court records show Kerry Max Cook fired his legal team last week after a judge dropped the charge against him in the 1977 slaying of a 21-year-old woman in the East Texas town of Tyler. Cook was released from prison in 1999.

In a Facebook post by Cook that was included in court records submitted by prosecutors, he criticizes lawyers for the New York-based Innocence Project and the Innocence Project of Texas, saying that he never approved an agreement that would absolve prosecutors of wrongdoing.

He said he was "humiliated" by comments from one of his attorneys, Gary Udashen, praising the cooperation of Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham.

...The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals needs to approve any exoneration. If that's granted, Cook could be eligible for more than $3 million in compensation from the state, plus additional benefits, for the 20 years he was imprisoned...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article

 

[anotherlife]

There is no wrongful conviction, only crooks that want one more dance before the gallow.

 

[Agit8r]

There is only one reason that anyone is wrongfully convicted; corrupt prosecutors and police. As long as we allow corrupt prosecutors and police to live, it will keep happening.

 

[anotherlife]

There is only one reason that anyone is wrongfully convicted; corrupt prosecutors and police. As long as we allow corrupt prosecutors and police to live, it will keep happening.

The source of that corruption is the prison services industry. By bringing back the gallow, that corruption is reduced to the old level of asset and turf wars.

 

[DGS49]

Those who have studied the phenomenon have uniformly (no pun intended) come to the conclusion that police will plant or alter evidence on occasion, but ONLY when they are convinced that the accused is actually guilty of the crime, and they feel a need to add to the pile of inculpatory evidence. The times when a cop intentionally plants evidence against someone he knows is innocent are microscopic, in the big picture.

Which is not to say that it doesn't happen, or that justice should not ultimately prevail: the cop should be criminally prosecuted and the convict should be financially compensated.

"Corruption" is probably not the best word for this phenomenon. Corruption implies that the bad cops and prosecutors had something personally to gain, which is almost never the case.

 

[indago]

From The Associated Press 25 June 2016:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Montana man who was granted clemency by the governor after he spent three decades behind bars for a murder he says he did not commit is now under investigation on allegations that he asked a female to perform sex acts. ...Barry Beach picked up the female, whose age is not clear in the report, and drove her to his home, where he asked, "Can I touch you?" ...the female said no, and no again when Beach allegedly asked her if she wanted to touch him...

...Beach then took her to a parking lot, where he asked if she liked performing a sex act. He eventually dropped the female off at a house. The person who complained to police said the female appeared scared.
-------------------------------------------------------------

article

Barry Beach has been in prison so long he doesn't know how to act in the general society anymore. It is irresponsible, at best, to send an individual, who has been incarcerated for "three decades behind bars", back out into society without any kind of intermediary counseling. The same with returning war vets. They are not the same person that left to go to war.

 

[JoeMoma]

From The Associated Press 25 June 2016:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Montana man who was granted clemency by the governor after he spent three decades behind bars for a murder he says he did not commit is now under investigation on allegations that he asked a female to perform sex acts. ...Barry Beach picked up the female, whose age is not clear in the report, and drove her to his home, where he asked, "Can I touch you?" ...the female said no, and no again when Beach allegedly asked her if she wanted to touch him...

...Beach then took her to a parking lot, where he asked if she liked performing a sex act. He eventually dropped the female off at a house. The person who complained to police said the female appeared scared.
-------------------------------------------------------------

article

Barry Beach has been in prison so long he doesn't know how to act in the general society anymore. It is irresponsible, at best, to send an individual, who has been incarcerated for "three decades behind bars", back out into society without any kind of intermediary counseling. The same with returning war vets. They are not the same person that left to go to war.

Creepy as this story is, it seems like this guy followed proper procedure by asking for consent and not proceeding with sex acts without consent.

 

[Agit8r]

Doesn't the state have to pay restitution for wrongful convictions?

I mean, ya get a couple million dollars, and y'know...

 

[Jarlaxle]

There is no wrongful conviction, only crooks that want one more dance before the gallow.

Stupid statement.

 

[anotherlife]

Doesn't the state have to pay restitution for wrongful convictions?

I mean, ya get a couple million dollars, and y'know...

That would be like asking for a refund on your protection money.

 

[anotherlife]

There is no wrongful conviction, only crooks that want one more dance before the gallow.

Stupid statement.

Learn to spell. It's not stupid but stoopid.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sober up.

 

[indago]

From WDIV Detroit 13 July 2016:
----------------------------------------------------
Davontae Sanford spoke out against Tuesday's announcement that the Wayne County prosecutor denied a perjury warrant against former Detroit Police Deputy Chief James Tolbert in the case which sent Sanford to prison for eight years when he was 14 years old.

“I was hurt,” Sanford said. “Every time I turn around, like, I’m the one being attacked when I’m the one that was being victimized. I was the one in prison for a crime I didn’t commit. I was holding to that maybe, just maybe, she would do the right thing this time.”

Sanford said he is being unfairly represented by Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy.

“I think the main reason she didn’t want to charge Tolbert is because, you got to think about it, if he lied on my case, how many other cases he did lie on?” Sanford said. “I don’t think she wants to deal with that.”
----------------------------------------------------

report/video

 

[indago]

From The Associated Press 19 July 2016:
------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles County will pay $10.1 million to a man who spent 20 years in prison before his murder conviction was overturned. Supervisors voted Tuesday to settle a lawsuit filed by Francisco Carrillo Jr. ...witnesses who identified Carrillo as the gunman from a photo lineup recanted in 2011, saying they couldn't see the killer's face...

Carrillo sued the Sheriff's Department, contending that a deputy coerced a witness to pick Carrillo's photo.
------------------------------------------------------------

article

That "$10.1 million" should come out of the Sheriff Department budget as a reminder of what happens when cops lie.

 

[Clementine]

There is only one reason that anyone is wrongfully convicted; corrupt prosecutors and police. As long as we allow corrupt prosecutors and police to live, it will keep happening.

Agree that some are corrupt, but find it really creepy how you say they shouldn't be allowed to live. They should be in jail.

There are corrupt DAs and corrupt cops. There are just corrupt people in every walk of life. Period. I think it's creepy that you say that corrupt prosecutors and cops shouldn't be allowed to live. I think they should go to jail if they knowingly convict an innocent person or tamper with evidence.

Wrongful convictions are not always deliberate. Police and DAs can be convinced by circumstantial evidence that someone is guilty and the juries often agree. There have been cases of mistaken identity where a witness is positive that a person is the one who committed the crime. Despite eye witness testimony not being nearly as reliable as many would think, it's taken as solid proof much of the time.

It's when prosecutors are willing to do anything in order to get a conviction that we see the worst kind of corruption.

San Diego boasts of a very high conviction rate. I think sometimes they put their careers first and getting convictions makes it appear that they are getting criminals off the streets. Helps to instill confidence from the public and get District Attorney's re-elected. Of course, if they have convicted the wrong person, no one is any safer. It's all an illusion, but if their career is their first priority, they don't feel bad about locking up some innocent people. The public is given a false sense of security and the DAs keep their jobs.

I think sometimes it's just sloppy police work, maybe from lack of experience. The Jon Benet Ramsey case would fit that. Police who aren't used to investigating murder cases are going to make a lot of mistakes. If that case hadn't been national news for weeks, it may well have ended with the wrong suspect being arrested to allay public fears. When the entire country is watching, they are less likely to play games.

When a lack of evidence or witnesses produces a suspect, they tend to go by statistics to look for the most likely suspect. Say a woman is murdered in her home. The husband will get looked at first. If he has an alibi or the woman was single, they go to boyfriends, neighbors or any convicted felons living in the area. They look till they find one that seems to fit and then build a case.

Of course, we all know the best way is to find evidence, however small, and see where it leads. This would happen the majority of time if mayors and the public didn't demand that police find the person yesterday. Under intense pressure to catch a criminal, they sometimes choose a likely suspect and then try to fit any evidence into a case against that person. This is where exonerating evidence has been ignored and even evidence tampered with or created, such as planting blood evidence in a person's home. Once they publicly accuse someone of a crime, they don't back down, regardless of evidence or lack of it. I think some are more likely to worry about covering their own tracks than admitting they got it wrong.

DAs generally rely on media to try the case in the news before the trial even begins. Great way to taint the jury pool well ahead of trial. Anything from a person's past is bought up to attack their character. If a couple had a fight witnessed by neighbors or a person ever got into a physical fight with someone, the DA will paint them as violent. Things like life insurance policies are cited as motives. If it's a sizeable amount, they say it was a plot to get rich. If the amount was fairly small, they claim that was on purpose so the insurance company wouldn't balk at writing a check without question.

One woman in California was convicted of poisoning her husband and the DAs case was flimsy at best. Not a shred of evidence, but a campaign in the media that attacked the way the woman grieved managed to get her life without the possibility of parole. If her lawyer hadn't fallen on his sword and admitted that he didn't do a good enough job, she would have rotted in jail. She was granted a new trial but the DA knew a retrial would be a huge embarrassment because the new lawyer would pick apart the flimsy case, so she magically found a second set of tissue samples taken from the autopsy (that she had claimed numerous times no longer existed) and had them retested. The tests showed that the husband was not poisoned. Not only was the woman innocent, there wasn't even a crime and she was released from jail. This was the Cindy Sommer case in San Diego, which you can look up.

It was a great example of how you can ruin a reputation by basically spreading gossip.

You could make Mother Theresa look guilty with the methods used by many DAs.

Thankfully, we have the Innocence Project, which had managed to prove thousands of people are innocent through DNA testing. Of course, most cases don't have DNA evidence and it's tough to get a second trial without overwhelming proof. Judges like to side with the DAs even when the evidence is underwhelming.

I think most of the time, they worry about getting it right. There are always those people, in any occupation, that put their own careers first, but most just want to do their jobs well. It doesn't help that there is so much pressure to catch criminals immediately. Good detective work takes time and it's better to take a few years than to build a bogus case just to make themselves look good.

 

[Agit8r]

There is only one reason that anyone is wrongfully convicted; corrupt prosecutors and police. As long as we allow corrupt prosecutors and police to live, it will keep happening.

Agree that some are corrupt, but find it really creepy how you say they shouldn't be allowed to live. They should be in jail.

There are corrupt DAs and corrupt cops. There are just corrupt people in every walk of life. Period. I think it's creepy that you say that corrupt prosecutors and cops shouldn't be allowed to live. I think they should go to jail if they knowingly convict an innocent person or tamper with evidence.

Wrongful convictions are not always deliberate. Police and DAs can be convinced by circumstantial evidence that someone is guilty and the juries often agree. There have been cases of mistaken identity where a witness is positive that a person is the one who committed the crime. Despite eye witness testimony not being nearly as reliable as many would think, it's taken as solid proof much of the time.

It's when prosecutors are willing to do anything in order to get a conviction that we see the worst kind of corruption.

San Diego boasts of a very high conviction rate. I think sometimes they put their careers first and getting convictions makes it appear that they are getting criminals off the streets. Helps to instill confidence from the public and get District Attorney's re-elected. Of course, if they have convicted the wrong person, no one is any safer. It's all an illusion, but if their career is their first priority, they don't feel bad about locking up some innocent people. The public is given a false sense of security and the DAs keep their jobs.

I think sometimes it's just sloppy police work, maybe from lack of experience. The Jon Benet Ramsey case would fit that. Police who aren't used to investigating murder cases are going to make a lot of mistakes. If that case hadn't been national news for weeks, it may well have ended with the wrong suspect being arrested to allay public fears. When the entire country is watching, they are less likely to play games.

When a lack of evidence or witnesses produces a suspect, they tend to go by statistics to look for the most likely suspect. Say a woman is murdered in her home. The husband will get looked at first. If he has an alibi or the woman was single, they go to boyfriends, neighbors or any convicted felons living in the area. They look till they find one that seems to fit and then build a case.

Of course, we all know the best way is to find evidence, however small, and see where it leads. This would happen the majority of time if mayors and the public didn't demand that police find the person yesterday. Under intense pressure to catch a criminal, they sometimes choose a likely suspect and then try to fit any evidence into a case against that person. This is where exonerating evidence has been ignored and even evidence tampered with or created, such as planting blood evidence in a person's home. Once they publicly accuse someone of a crime, they don't back down, regardless of evidence or lack of it. I think some are more likely to worry about covering their own tracks than admitting they got it wrong.

DAs generally rely on media to try the case in the news before the trial even begins. Great way to taint the jury pool well ahead of trial. Anything from a person's past is bought up to attack their character. If a couple had a fight witnessed by neighbors or a person ever got into a physical fight with someone, the DA will paint them as violent. Things like life insurance policies are cited as motives. If it's a sizeable amount, they say it was a plot to get rich. If the amount was fairly small, they claim that was on purpose so the insurance company wouldn't balk at writing a check without question.

One woman in California was convicted of poisoning her husband and the DAs case was flimsy at best. Not a shred of evidence, but a campaign in the media that attacked the way the woman grieved managed to get her life without the possibility of parole. If her lawyer hadn't fallen on his sword and admitted that he didn't do a good enough job, she would have rotted in jail. She was granted a new trial but the DA knew a retrial would be a huge embarrassment because the new lawyer would pick apart the flimsy case, so she magically found a second set of tissue samples taken from the autopsy (that she had claimed numerous times no longer existed) and had them retested. The tests showed that the husband was not poisoned. Not only was the woman innocent, there wasn't even a crime and she was released from jail. This was the Cindy Sommer case in San Diego, which you can look up.

It was a great example of how you can ruin a reputation by basically spreading gossip.

You could make Mother Theresa look guilty with the methods used by many DAs.

Thankfully, we have the Innocence Project, which had managed to prove thousands of people are innocent through DNA testing. Of course, most cases don't have DNA evidence and it's tough to get a second trial without overwhelming proof. Judges like to side with the DAs even when the evidence is underwhelming.

I think most of the time, they worry about getting it right. There are always those people, in any occupation, that put their own careers first, but most just want to do their jobs well. It doesn't help that there is so much pressure to catch criminals immediately. Good detective work takes time and it's better to take a few years than to build a bogus case just to make themselves look good.

And who is going to prosecute them?

 

[koshergrl]

There is only one reason that anyone is wrongfully convicted; corrupt prosecutors and police. As long as we allow corrupt prosecutors and police to live, it will keep happening.

Well...as long as we allow them to get away with it....

 

[koshergrl]

We have corruption at all levels. Our system is set up with checks and balances, but when those also fall then we're screwed.

Our congress no longer holds anybody accountable. They are the ones who are supposed to check corruption in the courts, the admin etc. They don't do it. And the result is what you see...bad law, corrupt people at the very highest offices....investigations that expose criminal behavior..but which are never acted upon, the creation of unconstitutional agencies that should NEVER have been allowed to come into existence. All because our elected representatives are NOT DOING THEIR JOBS.

 

[Clementine]

There is only one reason that anyone is wrongfully convicted; corrupt prosecutors and police. As long as we allow corrupt prosecutors and police to live, it will keep happening.

Agree that some are corrupt, but find it really creepy how you say they shouldn't be allowed to live. They should be in jail.

There are corrupt DAs and corrupt cops. There are just corrupt people in every walk of life. Period. I think it's creepy that you say that corrupt prosecutors and cops shouldn't be allowed to live. I think they should go to jail if they knowingly convict an innocent person or tamper with evidence.

Wrongful convictions are not always deliberate. Police and DAs can be convinced by circumstantial evidence that someone is guilty and the juries often agree. There have been cases of mistaken identity where a witness is positive that a person is the one who committed the crime. Despite eye witness testimony not being nearly as reliable as many would think, it's taken as solid proof much of the time.

It's when prosecutors are willing to do anything in order to get a conviction that we see the worst kind of corruption.

San Diego boasts of a very high conviction rate. I think sometimes they put their careers first and getting convictions makes it appear that they are getting criminals off the streets. Helps to instill confidence from the public and get District Attorney's re-elected. Of course, if they have convicted the wrong person, no one is any safer. It's all an illusion, but if their career is their first priority, they don't feel bad about locking up some innocent people. The public is given a false sense of security and the DAs keep their jobs.

I think sometimes it's just sloppy police work, maybe from lack of experience. The Jon Benet Ramsey case would fit that. Police who aren't used to investigating murder cases are going to make a lot of mistakes. If that case hadn't been national news for weeks, it may well have ended with the wrong suspect being arrested to allay public fears. When the entire country is watching, they are less likely to play games.

When a lack of evidence or witnesses produces a suspect, they tend to go by statistics to look for the most likely suspect. Say a woman is murdered in her home. The husband will get looked at first. If he has an alibi or the woman was single, they go to boyfriends, neighbors or any convicted felons living in the area. They look till they find one that seems to fit and then build a case.

Of course, we all know the best way is to find evidence, however small, and see where it leads. This would happen the majority of time if mayors and the public didn't demand that police find the person yesterday. Under intense pressure to catch a criminal, they sometimes choose a likely suspect and then try to fit any evidence into a case against that person. This is where exonerating evidence has been ignored and even evidence tampered with or created, such as planting blood evidence in a person's home. Once they publicly accuse someone of a crime, they don't back down, regardless of evidence or lack of it. I think some are more likely to worry about covering their own tracks than admitting they got it wrong.

DAs generally rely on media to try the case in the news before the trial even begins. Great way to taint the jury pool well ahead of trial. Anything from a person's past is bought up to attack their character. If a couple had a fight witnessed by neighbors or a person ever got into a physical fight with someone, the DA will paint them as violent. Things like life insurance policies are cited as motives. If it's a sizeable amount, they say it was a plot to get rich. If the amount was fairly small, they claim that was on purpose so the insurance company wouldn't balk at writing a check without question.

One woman in California was convicted of poisoning her husband and the DAs case was flimsy at best. Not a shred of evidence, but a campaign in the media that attacked the way the woman grieved managed to get her life without the possibility of parole. If her lawyer hadn't fallen on his sword and admitted that he didn't do a good enough job, she would have rotted in jail. She was granted a new trial but the DA knew a retrial would be a huge embarrassment because the new lawyer would pick apart the flimsy case, so she magically found a second set of tissue samples taken from the autopsy (that she had claimed numerous times no longer existed) and had them retested. The tests showed that the husband was not poisoned. Not only was the woman innocent, there wasn't even a crime and she was released from jail. This was the Cindy Sommer case in San Diego, which you can look up.

It was a great example of how you can ruin a reputation by basically spreading gossip.

You could make Mother Theresa look guilty with the methods used by many DAs.

Thankfully, we have the Innocence Project, which had managed to prove thousands of people are innocent through DNA testing. Of course, most cases don't have DNA evidence and it's tough to get a second trial without overwhelming proof. Judges like to side with the DAs even when the evidence is underwhelming.

I think most of the time, they worry about getting it right. There are always those people, in any occupation, that put their own careers first, but most just want to do their jobs well. It doesn't help that there is so much pressure to catch criminals immediately. Good detective work takes time and it's better to take a few years than to build a bogus case just to make themselves look good.

And who is going to prosecute them?

You've just stated the big problem. There is so little oversight over the actions of DAs. Courts are not often willing to go after them. It is a problem. And those who have tried to sue them and call them up on corruption have faced an uphill battle. It would seem this issue literally will take an act of congress. Not that we should tie up every court by everyone screaming wrongful conviction. They are all innocent, ya know. Thing is, there have been so many cases of wrongful conviction proven and many innocent people continue to rot in jail because there was no DNA evidence to challenge.

A good start would be more lawyers willing to get involved and donate some time to take a second look at cases and going to bat for people who were convicted with no evidence and a very weak case because, in those instances, there is absolutely no guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course, the burden of proof to convict a prosecutor of malicious prosecution is the same. It just seems like the actual standards practiced for the average person are much lower than they should be.

Part of what makes things so easy for them to win bogus cases is public opinion. When there is a murder, people are glad to hear when an arrest is made because they want to think a killer is off the street. No one wonders if the guy did it or not.. They say they caught the person and hope they throw the book at them. Then there is so much media coverage and people are demonized, which taints jury pools. Details are put out there that wouldn't be admissible in court and it's just a sneaky way of doing it. The whole goal is to make the person unlikeable. Prosecutors have a few tricks to present the accused in the most negative light. They like to arrest them on a Friday. Much of the time, the person has a rough weekend and doesn't even get to shower. They show up for court Monday morning looking like hell. Helps if they appear to be some crazed maniac.

Our system is designed the best way possible to give people a fair shake, but the system is only as good as the people in it.