Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dallas News)   Texas: puts an innocent man in jail for 18 years. He gets out, so they refuse to pay him the $1.44 million state law says they owe him. Then they attach his wages for child support he owes. Why does he owe it? Texas: puts an innocent man in jail   (dallasnews.com) divider line 315
    More: Asinine, IOU  
•       •       •

26314 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2011 at 9:51 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



315 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-05-04 11:56:16 PM  

TheWhoppah: mongbiohazard: Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did?

The statute of limitations would prevent his conviction even if you could get past prosecutorial immunity.


So it's OK to falsely imprison someone with false evidence, and hide away (using state resources to do so) and evade justice, but it is OK to put an innocent person away for 18 years? You are really full of derp. People like you really scare me. yeeesh.
 
2011-05-04 11:56:44 PM  
Farkin Texas. Succeed from the union already. Good riddance.
 
2011-05-04 11:57:32 PM  

TheWhoppah: mongbiohazard: Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did?

The statute of limitations would prevent his conviction even if you could get past prosecutorial immunity.


Plus the Supreme Court has essentially ruled that you can't sue the prosecutor, no matter what they do.
 
2011-05-04 11:58:16 PM  
mercerism

24.media.tumblr.com

We CANNOT allow this to happen.

Mexico has suffered enough.
 
2011-05-04 11:58:48 PM  

TheWhoppah: Schlock: You can't PROVE innocence, all you can do is disrupt the prosecution's attempt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

The law in Texas is that you only get paid if you were in prison while actually innocent. If you are released on a technicallity that doesn't count. You only get paid if you can prove you were innocent. Lots of states have this exact same rule and some states don't offer ANYTHING AT ALL to wrongfully convicted prisoners.


don't bring stupid in here pls.
 
2011-05-05 12:00:19 AM  

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.


Funny, so the Comptroller is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent or not you say?

"If you really did do it but the cops can't prove it..."

But the cops are qualified for some reason? Oh, let's be fair though, I cut your sentence off...

"...or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned..."

This may be the one iota of sense you have in your whole post. Yes, it pissed me off that obvious criminals walk free on technicalities, such as how the police gather evidence and such. But these laws are in place to protect our freedoms, and it protects innocent people and guilty people alike unfortunately. So your state has made a law that screws over the innocents so you can "stick it" to the guilty ones, GOOD JOB TEXAS~! (that was sarcasm, just in case you missed it)

/BTW, Alaska is bigger.
//Suck it.
 
2011-05-05 12:01:00 AM  
We have another interesting situation in Texas regarding this innocent prisoner compensation law ...

If you are out of the penitentiary on parole for burglary, and a burglar strikes in your neighborhood, the cops will want to hear your alibi. If you say "fark you pigs" they might decide it was you. Rather than proving the new burglary in a trial they ask for a parole revocation. At trial they would need proof beyond a reasonable doubt but for a parole revocation they only need a preponderance of the evidence... That means they only need to prove it was more likely than not that you violated parole.

Boom, your parole is revoked for a crime you didn't do. Even if you are later exonerated of the second burglary you don't get paid because you were technically completing the sentence on the FIRST burglary which you did do, not the second one you didn't. Prisoners don't have any "right" to parole, it is a privilege. The state revoked the privilege based on bad evidence but you don't get paid because technically you didn't DESERVE to be out of prison anyhow.
 
2011-05-05 12:01:28 AM  

tomerson: Farkin Texas. SucceedSecede from the union already. Good riddance.


I don't want them to secede. You don't kick out the stupid kid. Because someone else becomes the stupid kid. That's just how it works.

/but then again, we already have Florida.
 
2011-05-05 12:01:49 AM  

Schlock: jadedlee: Actual innocence is a post-conviction finding overturning a wrongful conviction. Think of it this way, at the first trial you're innocent until proven guilty - therefore guilty or not guilty. After conviction you're guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof shifts from state to defense.

Alright, now I get you. But then how do you have a conviction overturned without the person being considered innocent by default, as in this case? The fact that it was overturned should mean de facto innocence, regardless of how it was worded on the paperwork


I fail at refreshing before posting. Sorry for the repeat there.

The appeals process is extremely messy and really depends on what the grounds are for an appeal. You can challenge convictions based on things like racial makeup of the jury (although not really anymore, thanks SCOTUS), prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations (meaning not all of the exculpatory evidence was given to the defense and therefore they were not able to make a comprehensive case), you can challenge whether the law you were convicted of violating is even legal in the first place (see Lawrence v. Texas where the conviction was on a law that was ruled unconstitutional). There are possibilities for having evidence ditched in appeals, like having a confession ruled inadmissible because of a Miranda violation the original trial did not account for, etc. The list goes on, it also depends on what was presented at the original trial, what the state law is and what the court will allow. None of those situations involve a claim of actual innocence, except possibly the Brady violations, but in most cases the information sought would have created doubt in the original trial, meaning not guilty.
 
nm
2011-05-05 12:03:28 AM  

Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.

Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.
 
2011-05-05 12:05:27 AM  
In a totally unexpected turn of events, the state of Texas decides against the black guy.

/This is not a repeat from every year in the past century.
 
2011-05-05 12:05:35 AM  

Silent But Deadly: TheWhoppah: mongbiohazard: Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did?

The statute of limitations would prevent his conviction even if you could get past prosecutorial immunity.

So it's OK to falsely imprison someone with false evidence, and hide away (using state resources to do so) and evade justice, but it is OK to put an innocent person away for 18 years? You are really full of derp. People like you really scare me. yeeesh.



I didn't write the farking statute of limitations. I'm telling you what the law is. If you don't like it write your farking congressman, don't say I'm "full of derp" just for explaining facts that you don't like. dumbass.
 
2011-05-05 12:07:52 AM  

jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...


Naw, she's following what the law says. The law is screwed up. Fortunately since it's on Perry's radar (amazingly), it'll get corrected and this poor man will, eventually, get paid.
 
2011-05-05 12:09:18 AM  

nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.


really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.
 
2011-05-05 12:09:55 AM  

TheWhoppah: Silent But Deadly: TheWhoppah: mongbiohazard: Why isn't former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta in jail now for what he did?

The statute of limitations would prevent his conviction even if you could get past prosecutorial immunity.

So it's OK to falsely imprison someone with false evidence, and hide away (using state resources to do so) and evade justice, but it is OK to put an innocent person away for 18 years? You are really full of derp. People like you really scare me. yeeesh.


I didn't write the farking statute of limitations. I'm telling you what the law is. If you don't like it write your farking congressman, don't say I'm "full of derp" just for explaining facts that you don't like. dumbass.


that';s, like, your opinion man!
 
2011-05-05 12:10:44 AM  
[SRSLY?.jpg]
 
2011-05-05 12:11:07 AM  

lightrunner: Hmm...


I guess, if she insisted . . .
 
2011-05-05 12:12:08 AM  

sip111: jadedlee: sip111: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with is handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be aloud to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.

Um, I'm pretty sure we're of the same opinion on Rick Perry. Maybe you just missed this in the article? "Despite criticism from Gov. Rick Perry - and pretty much everyone else - the comptroller has stood by this decision, which has prompted a lawsuit."

My point was Rick Perry, who barely qualifies as a human being, can see that this is an injustice. That makes this comptroller less human than Rick Perry, which is almost an accomplishment.

*Rereads, dammit, puts down beer.* Very true. The comptrollers in Texas are also historically incompetent, uncultured-and proud of it-dontcha' know (they see Mexico from their houses in Austin), baboons. The one before her, who could at least count higher than Ricky, that is all the way to ham, tried to tell people what were and weren't "real" religionsTM, and went about revoking tax exempt status from those she deemed "not real religions."

Seriously, you can't make this sort of stuff up.


You mean the one who went after Unitarians? Because I could sort of forgive going after Scientology, but don't mess with the Unitarians.

(And if you're drinking dumb beer you have an excuse for almost anything. I'm currently on Magic Hat Demo because I'm saving the Vinyl for later. Vinyl is awesome. No, I have no good excuses.)
 
2011-05-05 12:14:55 AM  

nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.


Yeah, everything you posted is why I called this an "admittedly bad suggestion." I was trying to offer some sort of insight into why someone might think that is the case.

I also think the Defense did a great job by getting this guy off, and don't deserve to be sued. Thanks for the insight from someone who actually knows what they are talking about, not just me and the other internet lawyers.
 
2011-05-05 12:15:44 AM  

Baron-Harkonnen: Have you guys ever coughed up a chunky, white piece of...something...that smelled like the pure essence of bad breath in solid form?


A gastrolith, formed from food particles that get caught in your tonsil folds and covered with bacteria, dead white blood cells, saliva and more food particles. farking annoying things, especially when they form a deep pocket inside your tonsil and you have to dig them out. When they're big enough to rub against your tongue or the membrane that's in front of the tonsil... augh.
 
2011-05-05 12:16:37 AM  
God damn farking bastards. This is just sanctioned criminality. fark THEM ALL!!!
 
2011-05-05 12:16:55 AM  
None of you freaks cussing the Texas justice system live in a state with enough balls to pass a death penalty law for second offense aggrevated sexual assault of a child. You all live in states that coddle perverts who rape children.

The only other state with the decency to try was Louisiana... and I know nobody from Louisiana is dissin on Texas justice. Damn US Supreme Court struck it down but we'll try again in a few years and cite "evolving standards of decency" as justification for expanding the death penalty beyond murderers. Eventually they'll agree. Just wait.
 
2011-05-05 12:17:16 AM  

relcec: nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.

really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.


Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get someone off death row? In Texas, no less? I'm sure you could do it by taking out books from the library and checking statutes. Yeah, his defense team, they were so incompetent because their foremost concern was getting the guy exonerated. What a bunch of greedy dirtbags for just saving his life.
 
2011-05-05 12:17:33 AM  
how much effort does it take for the lawyer to check the statute to find out what language is needed so his client gets paid for his 18 years of of being locked up on death row?
he doesn't even have to get off his ass to get a book.
it takes him 4 minutes of searching of lexis.
the insurance company won't even want to go to trial.
 
2011-05-05 12:18:49 AM  

nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.


Actually, your second post gives more credibility to the lawsuit suggestion, which is still bad. Just taking this off the top of my head, but if this were a court appointed attorney, it could be remotely argued that the attorney was pressured to leave out language that would result in the court having to pay this guy $1.4 million.

Not saying they did, but I don't see that really being far off in an argument.

Of course, I have no understanding of the oversight and independence a defense attorney receives from the government. I only know from personal experience that my court appointed defense lawyer was really buddy-buddy with the prosecutor, and it could have been a you scratch my back I'll scratch yours type of informal agreement for the defense not to push for the appropriate wording.

Really a stretch, I know.
 
2011-05-05 12:19:38 AM  
" [...] There is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you're innocent." - Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States
 
2011-05-05 12:20:15 AM  
*second point, not second point.

Again, I think his defense did a great job. I'm just trying to brainstorm stupid ideas for a lawsuit, and I'm pretty sure there have been a lot stupider lawsuits filed. And subsequently thrown out for being stupid, but still.
 
2011-05-05 12:20:43 AM  

sip111: jadedlee: sip111: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with is handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be aloud to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.

Um, I'm pretty sure we're of the same opinion on Rick Perry. Maybe you just missed this in the article? "Despite criticism from Gov. Rick Perry - and pretty much everyone else - the comptroller has stood by this decision, which has prompted a lawsuit."

My point was Rick Perry, who barely qualifies as a human being, can see that this is an injustice. That makes this comptroller less human than Rick Perry, which is almost an accomplishment.

*Rereads, dammit, puts down beer.* Very true. The comptrollers in Texas are also historically incompetent, uncultured-and proud of it-dontcha' know (they see Mexico from their houses in Austin), baboons. The one before her, who could at least count higher than Ricky, that is all the way to ham, tried to tell people what were and weren't "real" religionsTM, and went about revoking tax exempt status from those she deemed "not real religions."

Seriously, you can't make this sort of stuff up.


eh, the comptroller is an elected figurehead.

But, having dealt with plenty of government accounting offices, I can safely say the worst people in the world are bureaucrat accountants. There is no better way to exact your passive-aggressive revenge on the world than to delay signing a check for weeks because of a single vague word in some policy written decades ago. Or in the case of tax collectors, harass people for not paying enough in a similar fashion.

Are you bitter? Have an eye for details and creative interpretation? Want to lord over others even though you have no real authority? Your government and/or large corporate accounting office wants you ! Delay those payments and rake in the interest on that float!
 
2011-05-05 12:20:54 AM  

TheWhoppah: " [...] There is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you're innocent." - Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States


Can we execute Scalia in that case?
 
2011-05-05 12:21:35 AM  

TheWhoppah: None of you freaks cussing the Texas justice system live in a state with enough balls to pass a death penalty law for second offense aggrevated sexual assault of a child. You all live in states that coddle perverts who rape children.

The only other state with the decency to try was Louisiana... and I know nobody from Louisiana is dissin on Texas justice. Damn US Supreme Court struck it down but we'll try again in a few years and cite "evolving standards of decency" as justification for expanding the death penalty beyond murderers. Eventually they'll agree. Just wait.


While we applaud you for that particular point, all of your other problems and fark-ups massively overshadow it. So we're justified in pointing at you and laughing/crying/shaking our heads/wondering what the hell is wrong with you.

As far as "coddling" child rapists goes, they rarely last long in prison anyway. Even Evil Has Standards.
 
2011-05-05 12:23:14 AM  

nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.


The special prosecutor said she'd testify to his innocence. Not sure where that's from though, but looking.
 
2011-05-05 12:25:33 AM  

relcec: how much effort does it take for the lawyer to check the statute to find out what language is needed so his client gets paid for his 18 years of of being locked up on death row?


Despite the impression you get from Fark.com, innocent people coming off death row is not an everyday occurrence in any jurisdiction. It is covered heavily in the news because it is a man-bites-dog sort of event. Your attorney can't just buy a book of legal forms that include all the correct wording and citations for the occasion.
 
2011-05-05 12:25:39 AM  
Wow, when even Rick Perry thinks this is bullshiat, it's definitely bullshiat.
 
2011-05-05 12:25:45 AM  

jadedlee: relcec: nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.

really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get someone off death row? In Texas, no less? I'm sure you could do it by taking out books from the library and checking statutes. Yeah, his defense team, they were so incompetent because their foremost concern was getting the guy exonerated. What a bunch of greedy dirtbags for just saving his life.


doesn't matter. he had a duty to represent effectively all the way through, not stop working once he got the real killer to admit his guilt.
more importantly this is the heartbreak story of the century. a jury would want to see this man get paid, and a deep pocketed mal practice insurance company would be perfect. from the insurance companies view point it's better to just pay the man then pay the man now than pay the man and pay a bunch of lawyers later.
 
2011-05-05 12:28:07 AM  

jadedlee: Schlock: jadedlee: Actual innocence is a post-conviction finding overturning a wrongful conviction. Think of it this way, at the first trial you're innocent until proven guilty - therefore guilty or not guilty. After conviction you're guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof shifts from state to defense.

Alright, now I get you. But then how do you have a conviction overturned without the person being considered innocent by default, as in this case? The fact that it was overturned should mean de facto innocence, regardless of how it was worded on the paperwork

I fail at refreshing before posting. Sorry for the repeat there.

The appeals process is extremely messy and really depends on what the grounds are for an appeal. You can challenge convictions based on things like racial makeup of the jury (although not really anymore, thanks SCOTUS), prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations (meaning not all of the exculpatory evidence was given to the defense and therefore they were not able to make a comprehensive case), you can challenge whether the law you were convicted of violating is even legal in the first place (see Lawrence v. Texas where the conviction was on a law that was ruled unconstitutional). There are possibilities for having evidence ditched in appeals, like having a confession ruled inadmissible because of a Miranda violation the original trial did not account for, etc. The list goes on, it also depends on what was presented at the original trial, what the state law is and what the court will allow. None of those situations involve a claim of actual innocence, except possibly the Brady violations, but in most cases the information sought would have created doubt in the original trial, meaning not guilty.


Thanks for that
 
2011-05-05 12:28:46 AM  

Fett56: TheWhoppah: " [...] There is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you're innocent." - Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States

Can we execute Scalia in that case?



Fine by me as long as you do it while Obama will be the one appointing his successor.
 
2011-05-05 12:30:50 AM  

ArkAngel: Holy shiat. In one thread we're gonna have arguments on the death penalty, prosecutorial misconduct, faceless government, Texas, Rick Perry, and child support systems. And I'm sure someone will throw in a hot chick threadjack at some point.

This will be one to watch.


What if I just threw in a curveball and talked about how the wildfires was karma for Texas?
 
2011-05-05 12:31:11 AM  

colslax: Casey: It's a vicious circle.
Dan: It is.
Casey: It's a neverending circle.
Dan: Just keeps going round and round.
Casey: Never ends.
Dan: That's what makes it vicious.
Casey: And a circle.


every thread should have some Dan & Casey banter.

/we're just getting started here on Dan & Casey's Dance Fever
 
2011-05-05 12:31:18 AM  
It looks like most of the work on this case was done by journalism students under the supervision of a professor/lawyer working with the Innocence Project. Link (new window)
 
2011-05-05 12:32:25 AM  

TheWhoppah: relcec: how much effort does it take for the lawyer to check the statute to find out what language is needed so his client gets paid for his 18 years of of being locked up on death row?

Despite the impression you get from Fark.com, innocent people coming off death row is not an everyday occurrence in any jurisdiction. It is covered heavily in the news because it is a man-bites-dog sort of event. Your attorney can't just buy a book of legal forms that include all the correct wording and citations for the occasion.



we have these things called databases now. they include things like called government statutes and even published and non published cases. you can even do searches of these databases. I know amazing times we live in.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Section 103.051. Application Procedure

Legal Research Home > Texas Laws > Civil Practice & Remedies Code > Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Section 103.051. Application Procedure

§ 103.051. APPLICATION PROCEDURE. (a) To apply for compensation under this subchapter, the claimant must file with the comptroller's judiciary section: (1) an application for compensation provided for that purpose by the comptroller; (2) a verified copy of the pardon or court order justifying the application for compensation; (3) a statement provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice verifying the length of incarceration; and (4) a certification of the claimant's actual innocence of the crime for which the claimant was sentenced that is signed by the attorney representing the state in the prosecution of felonies in the county in which the sentence was rendered. (b) The comptroller shall determine: (1) the eligibility of the claimant; and (2) the amount of compensation owed to an eligible claimant. (c) The comptroller must make a determination of eligibility and the amount owed as required by Subsection (b) not later than the 45th day after the date the application is received. (d) If the comptroller denies the claim, the comptroller must state the reason for the denial. Not later than the 10th day after the date the denial is received, the claimant must submit an application to cure any problem identified. Not later than the 45th day after the date an application is received under this subsection, the comptroller shall determine the claimant's eligibility and the amount owed. (e) If the comptroller denies a claim after the claimant submits an application under Subsection (d), the claimant may bring an action for mandamus relief. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1488, § 1, eff. June 15, 2001. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1310, § 1, eff. June 20, 2003.
 
2011-05-05 12:35:40 AM  

relcec: jadedlee: relcec: nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.

really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get someone off death row? In Texas, no less? I'm sure you could do it by taking out books from the library and checking statutes. Yeah, his defense team, they were so incompetent because their foremost concern was getting the guy exonerated. What a bunch of greedy dirtbags for just saving his life.

doesn't matter. he had a duty to represent effectively all the way through, not stop working once he got the real killer to admit his guilt.
more importantly this is the heartbreak story of the century. a jury would want to see this man get paid, and a deep pocketed mal practice insurance company would be perfect. from the insurance companies view point it's better to just pay the man then pay the man now than pay the man and pay a bunch of lawyers later.


I think every reasonable person with an ounce of compassion wants to see this man get paid, but you're looking in the wrong place. Like I just posted, the bulk of the work on this case was done by journalism students on behalf of the Innocence Project. Yes, you'll have a lawyer who headed that team and could be liable, but what are you thinking? Let's bankrupt the organization that helps innocent people for free so that they can't help anyone else! Something something good deeds unpunished.
 
2011-05-05 12:36:01 AM  

relcec: doesn't matter. he had a duty to represent effectively all the way through, not stop working once he got the real killer to admit his guilt.



Wrong. The criminal defense attorney must give effective representation with regard to criminal liability only. The collection of this compensatory payment is a separate civil matter.

Imagine a situation where a drunk driver ran over and killed a child. The state prosecutes the driver in criminal court for felony intoxication manslaughter and the parents sue him in civil court. His criminal attorney works out a plea deal and the guy pleads guilty to misdemeanor reckless driving. This pretty much farks him for the purposes of the civil case but it isnt the criminal defense attorney's fault. That criminal defense attorney did a good job getting a misdemeanor reduction on a case the jury would have sent him to the pen. The civil defense is really screwed now that he admitted to reckless driving but thats not the criminal defense attorney's fault.
 
2011-05-05 12:36:26 AM  

Schlock: jadedleeI fail at refreshing before posting. Sorry for the repeat there.

The appeals process is extremely messy and really depends on what the grounds are for an appeal. You can challenge convictions based on things like racial makeup of the jury (although not really anymore, thanks SCOTUS), prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations (meaning not all of the exculpatory evidence was given to the defense and therefore they were not able to make a comprehensive case), you can challenge whether the law you were convicted of violating is even legal in the first place (see Lawrence v. Texas where the conviction was on a law that was ruled unconstitutional). There are possibilities for having evidence ditched in appeals, like having a confession ruled inadmissible because of a Miranda violation the original trial did not account for, etc. The list goes on, it also depends on what was presented at the original trial, what the state law is and what the court will allow. None of those situations involve a claim of actual innocence, except possibly the Brady violations, but in most cases the information sought would have created doubt in the original trial, meaning not guilty.

Thanks for that


To expand on that, it didn't occur to me that post-conviction judgements would be any different than those in the initial trial, and you cleared it up nicely. It's still kind of messed up that you can be found not guilty and not have that equate with innocence, but I can sort of see why it is the way it is.
 
2011-05-05 12:41:26 AM  

relcec: TheWhoppah: relcec: how much effort does it take for the lawyer to check the statute to find out what language is needed so his client gets paid for his 18 years of of being locked up on death row?

Despite the impression you get from Fark.com, innocent people coming off death row is not an everyday occurrence in any jurisdiction. It is covered heavily in the news because it is a man-bites-dog sort of event. Your attorney can't just buy a book of legal forms that include all the correct wording and citations for the occasion.


we have these things called databases now. they include things like called government statutes and even published and non published cases. you can even do searches of these databases. I know amazing times we live in.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Section 103.051. Application Procedure

Legal Research Home > Texas Laws > Civil Practice & Remedies Code > Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Section 103.051. Application Procedure

§ 103.051. APPLICATION PROCEDURE. (a) To apply for compensation under this subchapter, the claimant must file with the comptroller's judiciary section: (1) an application for compensation provided for that purpose by the comptroller; (2) a verified copy of the pardon or court order justifying the application for compensation; (3) a statement provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice verifying the length of incarceration; and (4) a certification of the claimant's actual innocence of the crime for which the claimant was sentenced that is signed by the attorney representing the state in the prosecution of felonies in the county in which the sentence was rendered. (b) The comptroller shall determine: (1) the eligibility of the claimant; and (2) the amount of compensation owed to an eligible claimant. (c) The comptroller must make a determination of eligibility and the amount owed as required by Subsection (b) not later than the 45th day after the date the application is received. (d) If the comptroller denies the claim, the comptroller must state the reason for the denial. Not later than the 10th day after the date the denial is received, the claimant must submit an application to cure any problem identified. Not later than the 45th day after the date an application is received under this subsection, the comptroller shall determine the claimant's eligibility and the amount owed. (e) If the comptroller denies a claim after the claimant submits an application under Subsection (d), the claimant may bring an action for mandamus relief. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1488, § 1, eff. June 15, 2001. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1310, § 1, eff. June 20, 2003.


Headline: Journalism students successfully exonerate innocent man; save him from execution and 18 years on death row

Fark whiners: Why didn't the journalism students know the intricacies of the Texas criminal compensation law that we only know to even look for because it's being reported on??!?!

Next time you save someone from death row and get them a bazillion dollars in compensation from Texas, make sure to cut out the newspaper clipping and put it on your fridge.
 
2011-05-05 12:42:04 AM  
I guess what I find depressing about all of this is that at this point, we expect court appointed lawyers to suck hard.
 
2011-05-05 12:43:13 AM  

relcec: [...] Civil Practice & Remedies Code [...]


Do you realize that its unlikely any full-time criminal defense attorneys have even looked at the civil practice & remedies code since law school? You might as well be asking a software engineer to balance organic chemistry equations. Yeah maybe they did it for one semester back in school but good luck with relying on their answer.
 
2011-05-05 12:43:54 AM  
I opened the story just to see if the guy was black.

SURPRISE!!!!

lol texas....
 
2011-05-05 12:44:05 AM  

jadedlee: relcec: jadedlee: relcec: nm: Fett56: It is an admittedly bad suggestion, but due to their incompetence in securing a verdict that would allow him to simultaneously be released from prison, and immediately start getting payments from the state.Instead he has to file a lawsuit to prove what everyone knows is true, and the defense attorney actually profits from his original farkup. Assuming he is still using the same attorney, which I would not be.So a) attorney farked up and b) attorney potentially gets paid for farking up.
Yes, he farked up so bad that he got him off of death row.
The standard for legal malpractice is ineffective assistance, and no one will ever win such a case when the lawyer you are suing too you from death row to home. The attorney may have been a bit more concerned with the state killing his client than getting a verdict that would get him paid. And for the record, you only get factual innocence if the prosecutor agrees, which they won't, and you risk a trial again instead of just accepting a dismissal, or you have to win it in a hearing, which is what this guy is doing now. In any event it is unlikely that he'll need to prove actual innocence and rather the state is being a bunch of jackasses.

Second as nearly all death penalty people are indigent, so he likely had a occur appointed attorney. As Texas is notorious for having some of the lowest indigent pay possible, no one is getting rich off this. It is also likely this was the work of a pro bono innocence project.

The defense attorneys did absolutely nothing wrong here. They did their job, extremely well. I say this as an actual criminal defense attorney, not some dude.

really? all he had to do was check the statute for the language needed to make sure he got paid by the state. the prosecutor and judge had already agreed that he was ACTUALLY INNOCENT and he was going home.

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get someone off death row? In Texas, no less? I'm sure you could do it by taking out books from the library and checking statutes. Yeah, his defense team, they were so incompetent because their foremost concern was getting the guy exonerated. What a bunch of greedy dirtbags for just saving his life.

doesn't matter. he had a duty to represent effectively all the way through, not stop working once he got the real killer to admit his guilt.
more importantly this is the heartbreak story of the century. a jury would want to see this man get paid, and a deep pocketed mal practice insurance company would be perfect. from the insurance companies view point it's better to just pay the man then pay the man now than pay the man and pay a bunch of lawyers later.

I think every reasonable person with an ounce of compassion wants to see this man get paid, but you're looking in the wrong place. Like I just posted, the bulk of the work on this case was done by journalism students on behalf of the Innocence Project. Yes, you'll have a lawyer who headed that team and could be liable, but what are you thinking? Let's bankrupt the organization that helps innocent people for free so that they can't help anyone else! Something something good deeds unpunished.


that's why the victim in this case won't do it.
he's apparently just happy to be alive.
 
2011-05-05 12:46:18 AM  

TheWhoppah: You all live in states that coddle perverts who rape children.


says the moron who thinks death is a worse fate then decades in general population and known as a kiddy fiddler.
 
2011-05-05 12:46:28 AM  

jst3p: Hrist: There are three levels of guilt. Guilty, not guilty due to lack of evidence, and not guilty. Not guilty due to lack of evidence means that you're still guilty but that they couldn't meet the minimum standards for guilt for a crime.

Huh? Some people are found not guilty due to lack of evidence and that is the same as being found guilty?

I am going to need some more information here.


That's what I'm gathering from this story, yeah. Instead of saying, "Sorry, we imprisoned you for almost twenty years off of flimsy evidence that was made up by one person with no witnesses. Here's a shiat ton of money, hope this helps to make things right." they're saying, "We know you're guilty, so you're lucky you're getting out. You better learn to pay your OTHER dues to society, boy, or you'll be right back in here in a week! Just because the fancy schmancy legal system says we can't keep you doesn't mean you didn't do it! You're still guilty, we just can't prove it!"
 
Displayed 50 of 315 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report