Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 16:30:56 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpien@ctp=StopSpammers=.iwantnospam.com
|
Viewed:
|
1097 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher L. Weeks" wrote:
> How often are you so involved in a criminal court case that you're sure
> that the jury was wrong?
Once.
> How often could you possibly have a reasonable opinion?
Once. (same case both times)
I was the foreman on a jury that got the "wrong" verdict. Wrong in that
we let someone go who clearly was guilty. But "clearly" was not clear to
us until after the fact, when we talked to the prosecutor about it. This
guy had been on a spree and the prosecutor was trying each case
separately. This was the third time a jury had voted to acquit. He
wanted some feedback. We gave it to him.
But you know what? It was the RIGHT verdict. I stand behind it. From our
perspective, there was no evidence linking the assault weapon to the
defendant as the prints were only of the cops. The confession was
tainted because it had big gaps of time in it and because it was
inconsistent. The testimony by the victim was inconclusive because she
could not ID the assailant. The police testimony hinted at mistreatment
and rights violations.
The police botched the investigation in a major way. Their negligence
and malfeasance tainted the evidence badly, and further, their handling
of the suspect violated his rights. Massively. Think beatings and rubber
hoses. They botched the ID by not working with the victim to get calm,
not taking down descriptive information till the memory had faded etc.
At least 1/2 dozen other flaws that I have forgotten.
The prosecutor was beside himself in frustration at the cops for not
calling in forensics until prints were smeared, not following procedure,
and in general treating a situation where someone was invading house
after house during the span of a night quite cavalierly (multiple 911
calls from different victims were blown off, ignored, responded to way
too late, and not analysed for a pattern until 20+ homes had been
invaded, residents terrorised and so forth). He wanted to get this guy
pretty badly so he was trying each case separately, hoping for at least
one conviction.
This is a situation where a civil suit by the victims would have been
entirely appropriate. But not against the perp. Against the cops. Too
bad that's not possible. Clear malfeasance. Cops are clean, though, no
chance for any suit against THEM.
This is a situation where some heat ownership by the victims would have
been very beneficial, too. Noone had any.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| Two things. 1) You can *never* be 100% sure that anyone committed any crime with circumstantial evidence. 2) Were you a juror for the O.J. travesty, uh sorry, trial? -John <donning asbestos suit for wrath of Lar> (...) Repeat after me. I was (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) What makes a criminal trial verdict clearly wrong? For instance with OJ: everyone I knew had an opinion, most of them thought he was guilty as hell and should fry, but a few were absolutely sure that he was innocent. So, he got off and (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
