If the complainant was working at a Chicago Walgreens, I doubt she's got a lot going for her (including common sense).

I sense a lawsuit in 3... 2... 1....

we are all no more than one shoddy copshop away from financial ruin and a jail term.

Land of the free, home of the brave indeed. How's that holiday weekend going for everyone?

Nice police work there, Aurora.

Definitely a lawsuit will come out of this. Rightfully so I may add.

That's some fine police work there.

styckx:Definitely a lawsuit will come out of this. Rightfully so I may add.

That's some fine police work there.

I agree. She should sue for her legal fees defending herself against this wrong allegation.

They should've found a better witness than Mr Magoo before they decided to prosecute.

fuzzwell:

I agree. She should sue for her legal fees defending herself against this wrong allegation.

I don't think she would win. They would argue that with a witness, even one who was ultimately mistaken, they have probable cause.

I found it amazing that Walgreens Corp. didn't request that the video of such an incident be retained. It doesn't matter if the cops didn't ask for it right away.... Walgreens initiated the charges. I bet her voicemail is filled with offers from eager lawyers.

ExJerseyGirl:I don't think she would win. They would argue that with a witness, even one who was ultimately mistaken, they have probable cause.

My Rights!! My Rights!!! to a fair trial have been violated.

So if the witness had pointed to her in court, she'd be in jail now???

Pope George Ringo:So if the witness had pointed to her in court, she'd be in jail now???

That's the scary thought I had as well. But it would be a win for the DA, and that's what matters most.

Pope George Ringo:So if the witness had pointed to her in court, she'd be in jail now???

Doubtful. They would not have been able to prove motive. If I was on a jury, I sure wouldn't convict based solely on one eye witness who was a Walgreens cashier.

ExJerseyGirl:Pope George Ringo:So if the witness had pointed to her in court, she'd be in jail now???

Doubtful. They would not have been able to prove motive. If I was on a jury, I sure wouldn't convict based solely on one eye witness who was a Walgreens cashier.

Blame the Lawyer for not coaching his witness better.

"When the other dude asks you who did it, point at the defendant."
"Durrrrrr" *drools*

Well, cops in Aurora can be real hardasses, so beware. (new window)

well.
at least the jury system worked the way it was supposed to, in any case.

SilentStrider:well.
at least the jury system worked the way it was supposed to, in any case.



"Dead? In an atomic blast?? No sir.. I'm afraid it is no consolation that the implosion function triggered perfectly."

ExJerseyGirl:They would argue that with a witness, even one who was ultimately mistaken, they have probable cause.

Witness testimony is inherently unreliable. About 15 years ago my law school evidence professor did a demo for Dateline (or one of those shows) where he had a "thief" come in and steal a bag in front of about 100 witnesses. When asked to describe the perp to security, the witnesses gave many different descriptions.

I would think that the store/prosecutor would've had more evidence then just the cashier's testimony. If not, then both the store and the prosecutors' office really messed up.

damageddude:Witness testimony is inherently unreliable.

It's so damn unreliable that I can't imagine why it's still used as valid evidence. People are extremely easily suggestible. It's not their fault, it's just the way the human mind works, but still.

wyltoknow:People are extremely easily suggestible. It's not their fault, it's just the way the human mind works, but still.

So what you're saying is....

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!!

ExJerseyGirl:Pope George Ringo:So if the witness had pointed to her in court, she'd be in jail now???

Doubtful. They would not have been able to prove motive. If I was on a jury, I sure wouldn't convict based solely on one eye witness who was a Walgreens cashier.

Almost every case in Texas where a convicted felon was let go when DNA or other evidence proved his innocence was the result of a jury believing the testimony of a single eye witness. And any honest police officer, as well as numerous studies, will tell you that eye witness testimony is by far the least reliable evidence that can be presented.

People with common sense are often excluded from juries by one side or the other.

If I had a nickel for every time I read an article about some DA's "rock-solid case" founded entirely on eye-witness testimony...

*sigh*

This entire farkin' nation has become a joke.

SharkTrager
People with common sense are often excluded from juries by one side or the other.

Going a little further with that thought, people with common sense who are reasonably intelligent usually figure a way to get out of jury duty.

Bake her away toys.

Chicago legal system shines once again.

What was full of fail? -- The farking author of that article!

Authorities should round up and summarily shoot the author of this article and whoever hired this person as a writer. I read the thing, and I still really have no idea what was going on, or what order the events happened, or who these people are. Ok, ok, I get that a lady was arrested and stuff.

My point is that this ENTIRE article could have been written in about four or five sentences.

You would think that with the amount of movies we watch (as a nation) that people in this country would be able to string a story together in a coherent way. But I guess not.

damageddude:ExJerseyGirl:They would argue that with a witness, even one who was ultimately mistaken, they have probable cause.

Witness testimony is inherently unreliable. About 15 years ago my law school evidence professor did a demo for Dateline (or one of those shows) where he had a "thief" come in and steal a bag in front of about 100 witnesses. When asked to describe the perp to security, the witnesses gave many different descriptions.

I would think that the store/prosecutor would've had more evidence then just the cashier's testimony. If not, then both the store and the prosecutors' office really messed up.

Very true. Our psychology teacher tried to pull this, but her acting was atrocious and everyone knew immediately what was going on. We watched the video that you described afterward, and sure enough eyewitnesses can be a terrible evidence. Human memory can be manipulated to the point where an overweight white guy robbing a store becomes a skinny black guy wearing gang colors. People see what they want to see, and when stress is involved (armed robbery) it can turn an eyewitness testimony into horse shiat.

I sure hope someone will reimburse her legal fees...

Mercutio879:wyltoknow:People are extremely easily suggestible. It's not their fault, it's just the way the human mind works, but still.

So what you're saying is....

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!!

WTF are you talking about? There are five lights.

Yakk:Chicago legal system shines once again.

Aurora /= Chicago

Chicago has its issues, but this one is on the morons out in the suburbs.

FTFA: "Then suddenly, one day I find myself on a court docket with murderers and child rapists."

snif. And I thought we were such fast friends.

That cashier has got to be awfully stupid. Doesn't everyone know that the answer to "Is that person sitting in this courtroom?" always "Yes, it's the person at the defendant's table"? What, did she think they were trying to trick her by putting the defendant somewhere else? Who did she think that woman at the defendant's table was?


/Why was the defendant shopping at Walgreen's in the first place??
//So many questions.

What about the man in the gorilla suit?

That's APD for you. Place is still a hell hole...

SharkTrager:Almost every case in Texas where a convicted felon was let go when DNA or other evidence proved his innocence was the result of a jury believing the testimony of a single eye witness. And any honest police officer, as well as numerous studies, will tell you that eye witness testimony is by far the least reliable evidence that can be presented.

Even the "line-up" methodology is questioned, so that rather than giving the witness a choice of five or six people and giving them the impression that "your criminal is one of these," they're finding that greater success -- guilty parties being caught, not a warm body in the accused chair -- is achieved when people are given a selection or two of photographs, and they are told that the "perp" may or may not be in there -- less possibility of false positives.

Scary as hell.

/used to work at walgreens.

beve:They should've found a better witness than Mr Magoo before they decided to prosecute.

For you:

Part of the problem, he said, is overworked officers who have bigger fish to fry than a credit card fraud case.

So why then did the cops pursue the case?

Even the excuses are a fail.

"All my life I've tried to do the right thing," she said. "Then suddenly, one day I find myself on a court docket with murderers and child rapists."

"Those motherfarkers are obviously guilty. I don't even know why they bother giving them trials. It's not like people are ever falsely accused. Except for me."

They had a tape right there and did not take it into evidence. That is called incompetence.

There isn't a lot of info in the article, but it looks like the only evidence they had was provided by the cashier. They had no video (as noted). Did they have copies of the alleged fraudulent credit card receipts? Doubt it.

IANAL, but if it can be shown that the police did not perform due diligence in their investigation, she might have a case.

Ah, the reason you are "innocent until proven guilty"
because many in the system when given the chance screw-up.

And given that almost every industry's customer service is unreliable these days,
then I would think the same would be true of those who hold power over us.

One can screw up your credit in a blink of an eye,
and the other can screw up your life in the same speed.

We are just one of multitudes, so what do we matter?
The Founding Fathers understood this.
They didn't trust anybody.
Including themselves.

ExJerseyGirl:fuzzwell:

I agree. She should sue for her legal fees defending herself against this wrong allegation.

I don't think she would win. They would argue that with a witness, even one who was ultimately mistaken, they have probable cause.

Not sure that argument works when they could have pulled the security tapes like any reasonable cop/prosecutor would and avoided wasting the court's time and this woman's hard earned money. Or performed a lineup to make sure that the witness knew what the crook looked like.

I feel that she dodged a bullet. First of all, saying "I'll trust the jury," has the obvious problem that juries are typically made up of people who are too retarded to figure out how to get out of jury duty.

Second, she caught a lucky break when the state's witness showed that s/he had no idea what she was talking about and identified the "wrong" person. Almost every witness would just simply point to the person seated at the defendant's table, who often has neon orange jail scrubs on for easy "identification."

If the witness had simply pointed to the defendant, the defendant likely would have spent time in prison for a felony and her life would have been irretrievably ruined.

If I were state attorney, I would have opened an investigation into how the prosecutor and the detective could have been so incompetent as to pursue a felony charge without doing any sort of meaningful investigation. This was a sham and the law enforcement officials involved should be sacked, or at least reprimanded and shamed.

OK... so if there had been an immediate look at the tapes, people would moan about Big Brother. If someone had continued to commit credit fraud, people would bemoan the lack of action.

Yes, the DA was right. How could this have gone as far as it did with so little evidence. But the processes necessary to collect same are hampered by the protections to our rights which make so many Fark Headlines now. Where is the line... what is the solution. We are damned if we do... damned if we don't, fark the man, penis.

I don't know if anyone suggested this yet, but:

Flores handed her Mastercard to the 21-year-old cashier there to pay for the T-shirt and a couple of trinkets. Seconds later, the cashier told her the scanner was down

The cashier stole the CC number and racked up the charges.

"Part of the problem, he said, is overworked officers who have bigger fish to fry than a credit card fraud case."

But clearly plenty of time/taxpayer money to waste on prosecuting her. Perhaps if your DAs had done some continued investigation in to the case? He's probably very very pissed off she didn't take their plea bargain deal. Farkin wanker DA.

With the cops as corrupt and negligent as they are in Aurora it was only a matter of time before they were in a national headline for farking someone over. The Kane county kangaroo court system is even worse. A bunch of empty suits and politcal hacks trying to keep their corrupt phoney baloney jobs. The closer you get to Chicago the greater the corruption becomes. Yes, I lived there for many years. No, I would never go back.

/Massive lawsuit FTW

merreborn:"All my life I've tried to do the right thing," she said. "Then suddenly, one day I find myself on a court docket with murderers and child rapists."

"Those motherfarkers are obviously guilty. I don't even know why they bother giving them trials. It's not like people are ever falsely accused. Except for me."

ha! That's what I thought when I read this article! (When I read it the second time, because I had to read it twice, because it's written like shiat .)

eltejon:OK... so if there had been an immediate look at the tapes, people would moan about Big Brother.

No they wouldn't. Don't be a farking retard.