Marcus Aurelius: That seems like a bizarre stance for someone charged in state law with seeking justice

Since when do DAs ever give a rat's ass about "justice"? They're only interesting in putting people into prison for as long as possible.

There are no penalties for overlooking or withholding evidence. This needs to change.

I have a strong desire to kill motherfarkers like him. Innocent peoples lives ruined, families destroyed, all because it's all about winning and not about Justice.

I knew this was Texas before I clicked the link.

GAT_00: You really do have to admire Texans ability to absolutely pay no respect to the justice system and applaud themselves for locking up all the scary non-white people they can find and call a case solved.

And by admire, I mean hate. You know, yeah it was kinda going too far to say the entire state of Texas should burn, but dammit if you people don't show you deserve to have it happen to you at least once a week.

Irony: The DA is a non-white person.

GAT_00:

slayer199: These farkers forget what their job is, to find the truth...not to convict.

You want to know why DA's think their job is to convict and not find the truth? 40 years of the Republican manta of soft on crime.

It may also have something to do with the fact that for a DA, convictions are a measure of job performance for the position.

Sid_6.7: You have to respect the guy's reasoning:

1. The defendant is non-white.

2. Whoever did it is probably non-white.

3. As long as one of them darned sp*cs or n*ggers pays it don't make no difference to him which one.

See above.

Joe USer: Mr. Reyna, you are a coward and a disgrace to your office.

What did you expect? He's a lawyer for Christ's sake.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So he admits he has no respect for justice or truth, and it's really just all about convicting SOMEONE. ANYONE. ?

/oh wait... it's Texas. Nevermind

That "It's just Teaxas" thing would be a good argument if Texas was the only place that does it.

Here, for instance, is a quote from Antonin Scalia, of the US Supreme Court.

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged "actual innocence" is constitutionally cognizable.

That's right. According to the US Supreme Court, actual innocence is not a relevant fact.

should have enabled voting

WTF. Did he plea guilty or was he convicted by trial? Article says he pled, but DA, who sounds like an asshat either way, is saying something different.

FTA:

In any event, the Texas Legislature this year eliminated most grounds for prosecutors to oppose post-conviction DNA testing where the results might be probative, so I expect the DA's opposition will fail and the testing will eventually go forward.

Outrage!

Its for the transition to higher office. Tough on crime etc... He is tired of science messing with the natural business of the political process.

Texas District Attorney Abel Reyna hold an elected office (new window)

His ad brags that he's not a career politician. Perhaps it's time for McLennan County to help him live up to those words.

I think we may be CSI-Effecting this to some degree, picturing this whole DNA thing as being absolutely damning.

OK, so say he had a motive, witnesses testimony against him, there's evidence placing him at the scene at some unspecified time, had an item consistent with the murder weapon but not conclusively THE weapon, and acted oddly after the crime. They might get a conviction on that.

Now add a single bloody sock found at his residence into the evidence, which was said to be the from the victim, but not DNA tested. Later we test it and find it's his blood.

This does NOT mean he didn't do it. This was a part of the case, but the case did not hinge upon it. They could have gotten a conviction without it.

Maybe there's 7 bloody items found in his truck, 5 are blood from the victim, but 2 socks were presumed to be from the victim but were not. NOW is the conviction "proven" wrong?

I am sure defense teams have played this game with the media, saying new DNA evidence "exonerates" their client, and everyone gets a hard-on for it. Just saying, there's a lot of complexity towards "proving" whether the DNA being different than assumed in the trial actually means innocence.

New legal strategy (probably not new, but already used)- try to get DNA-laced fake items added to the evidence which won't get tested, in order to get your guilty client convicted by later exonerated.

Sid_6.7: You have to respect the guy's reasoning:

1. The defendant is non-white.

2. Whoever did it is probably non-white.

3. As long as one of them darned sp*cs or n*ggers pays it don't make no difference to him which one.

4. And hey, if it wasn't the guy who did it, he'll do it again, so I get to "clean up the streets" some more!

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So he admits he has no respect for justice or truth, and it's really just all about convicting SOMEONE. ANYONE. ?

/oh wait... it's Texas. Nevermind

America is about winning, for OUR team, at ANY cost, RIGHT or WRONG.

Have they seceded yet?

I for one feel safer knowing a conviction sends a strong message that crimes will be punished.

Getting more and more paranoid because I know that it doesn't make any difference who gets punished as long as someone is.

JuggleGeek: MaudlinMutantMollusk: So he admits he has no respect for justice or truth, and it's really just all about convicting SOMEONE. ANYONE. ?

/oh wait... it's Texas. Nevermind

That "It's just Teaxas" thing would be a good argument if Texas was the only place that does it.

Here, for instance, is a quote from Antonin Scalia, of the US Supreme Court.

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged "actual innocence" is constitutionally cognizable.

That's right. According to the US Supreme Court, actual innocence is not a relevant fact.

No, it's according to one guy on the Supreme Court. It's not the Supreme Court's opinion until at least five of them say it.

/So you got three more, since Thomas agrees...

namatad: MaudlinMutantMollusk: So he admits he has no respect for justice or truth, and it's really just all about convicting SOMEONE. ANYONE. ?

/oh wait... it's Texas. Nevermind

this
while the page was opening I figured that it had to be texas

I figured it was a 50/50 when I saw it, but the tag told me it wasn't the other one. I think we all know what tag that would be too.

Oznog: I think we may be CSI-Effecting this to some degree, picturing this whole DNA thing as being absolutely damning.

OK, so say he had a motive, witnesses testimony against him, there's evidence placing him at the scene at some unspecified time, had an item consistent with the murder weapon but not conclusively THE weapon, and acted oddly after the crime. They might get a conviction on that.

Now add a single bloody sock found at his residence into the evidence, which was said to be the from the victim, but not DNA tested. Later we test it and find it's his blood.

This does NOT mean he didn't do it.

Considering that it's the damning piece of evidence that removes reasonable doubt (reread your paragraph of setup), yes, yes it does mean he didn't do it (in the law's eyes, which are supposed to err on the side of innocence).

You want to know why DA's think their job is to convict and not find the truth? 40 years of the Republican manta of soft on crime.



The have mantas now?!?

alleged "actual innocence"

I'm from California, so sometimes I'm a bit slow, but what the fark does that mean?

Oznog: This does NOT mean he didn't do it. This was a part of the case, but the case did not hinge upon it. They could have gotten a conviction without it.

If that's the case then a new trial should have no problems finding him guilty again, right?

Or do juries not matter? If a prosecutor thinks a jury will convict someone based on some evidence should we just send them to jail and skip the whole expensive trial bit?

This is not your decision to make, or the prosecutors decision to make or the defense lawyers decision to make. We have judges and juries for a reason.

If the wrong person got convicted the guilty guy is escaping punishment. Even pro-punishment folks should get behind this!

How did i know this would be TexAss...

AbbeySomeone: There are no penalties for overlooking or withholding evidence. This needs to change.

Indeed.

You withhold or plant evidence of a crime, you are upon conviction sentenced to double the maximum penalty that the person you framed could have gotten. No parole, no time off for good behavior, no lube.

Authoritarians must be exterminated.

TheWhoppah: If the wrong person got convicted the guilty guy is escaping punishment. Even pro-punishment folks should get behind this!

Well ok, but you can't stop punishing the innocent guy until you catch the guilty one.

As long as there's a Texas, there's no reason to even try to debate in favor of the death penalty.

The second I saw the headline I knew it had to be Texas. Sure enough...

Is this the place where we go for all the Texas hate??? Just checking because I would hate to think that this kind of thing happens anywhere else in the country, that would really ruin my rage-on that I have for TexAss hurr durr....

The problem is not that it is Texas, it is that what really matters above all else in the court room is the lawyer's win/loss ratio. Which is one reason why lawyers get such a bad rap. Sending a guilty person to prison is not what a defense attorney wants, even if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt he did it. The lawyer would rather prevent the evidence from being entered into the trial. Sending an innocent man to prison doesn't matter to the prosecution because at the end of the trial what matters is "Did the lawyer win?". Actually sending an innocent man to prison is pretty much viewed as a job mistake that they would rather hide or blame on someone else.

My neighbor just finished some legal troubles. He and a friend had a falling out, she played nice as if they were still friends, asked him to feed her pets while she was away then called the police on him for breaking and entering. He was caught in her place. She kicked. The door before she left to make it look like he tried to kick the door in. The DA said that he could take the plea now, plead guilty to the felony trespassing charges and get three years probation or fight it, lose, and get ten years in a federal pen. Since he only had a state issued lawyer who really did not care because he was state issued, my neighbor took the plea. The former friend who started this mess: she's in legal trouble for drug possession.