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.

(My San Antonio)   If you're a prosecutor in Texas, and you hide DNA evidence to convict an innocent man of murdering his wife allowing the actual murderer to go free, then we'll promote you to Judge   (mysanantonio.com) divider line 136
    More: Asinine, justices, DNA evidence, Texas, DNA  
•       •       •

11340 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2013 at 12:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-16 05:30:30 PM  

BSABSVR: Rapmaster2000: I think this kind of thing isn't limited to Texas.

There's not a DA in the country that has ever been elected on respecting the rights of the accused and conscientiously balancing Americans' desire for security with liberty. They all get elected by promising to be tougher on crime than the other guy.


I'd say that's your problem right there.....
 
2013-02-16 05:30:42 PM  

quiet_american: not sure if trolling or not.

historical objections aside, it's the best available remedy in the current situation. the beauty of nullification is that you don't need the whole pool to agree, you just need enough not to convict.

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson


That's the problem though, you get enough tea party patriots in the jury pool, and hillbillies are blasting away at government agents with impunity.  I'm being a little snarky there, but not trolling.  Nullification sounds great when talking about marijuana possession and stuff, but the logical conclusion of it is that ugly stuff starts getting excused too. 
It's illegal (in most states) and immoral to shoot someone that's fleeing from a scene of a crime.  In Texas, people love that shiat, so if nullification became the norm, you're gonna see a lot more of it.
 
2013-02-16 05:36:13 PM  

Hobo Jr.: ZAZ: Why is this farker not behind bars yet?

The statute of limitations for perjury in Texas is two or three years. I doubt contempt of court would have a decades long limitations period.

I think this kind of thing isn't limited to Texas.

In Massachusetts we had the Fells Acres day care hysteria. Prosecutors just couldn't let go after the conviction was called into question.

Still the prosecutor's actions lead to the murder of a woman a year later.

Should he be tried for murder? No. But he is at least an accessory to the crime.


Why couldnt he be tried for murder? We already have the bullshiat argument about if cops shoot the wrong person during a shootout/chase, or someone dies during the pursuit of a suspect, that that suspect can be held accountable for the death of that non-party individual.  His action lead a murder later? Done deal man.  Turn about is fair play. Hold him accountable.
 
2013-02-16 05:40:20 PM  

kriegfusion: Why couldnt he be tried for murder? We already have the bullshiat argument about if cops shoot the wrong person during a shootout/chase, or someone dies during the pursuit of a suspect, that that suspect can be held accountable for the death of that non-party individual. His action lead a murder later? Done deal man. Turn about is fair play. Hold him accountable.


requires he be the proximate cause of the murder, here he obviously isn't.  Not saying he won't be civilly liable though.  Assuming they somehow strip him of his governmental immunity.  Which is doubtful.
 
2013-02-16 05:44:25 PM  

Champion of the Sun: quiet_american: not sure if trolling or not.

historical objections aside, it's the best available remedy in the current situation. the beauty of nullification is that you don't need the whole pool to agree, you just need enough not to convict.

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

That's the problem though, you get enough tea party patriots in the jury pool, and hillbillies are blasting away at government agents with impunity.  I'm being a little snarky there, but not trolling.  Nullification sounds great when talking about marijuana possession and stuff, but the logical conclusion of it is that ugly stuff starts getting excused too. 
It's illegal (in most states) and immoral to shoot someone that's fleeing from a scene of a crime.  In Texas, people love that shiat, so if nullification became the norm, you're gonna see a lot more of it.


overcorrection in favor of individual citizens where more people go free is infinitely preferable to overcorrection in favor of the state where the prisons are overflowing. let a few guilty people out so that you better ensure you don't have innocent people in prison.
 
2013-02-16 05:54:20 PM  

quiet_american: overcorrection in favor of individual citizens where more people go free is infinitely preferable to overcorrection in favor of the state where the prisons are overflowing. let a few guilty people out so that you better ensure you don't have innocent people in prison.


No, currently it takes twelve people (varies by state to state) to put a person away.  You want to go to a system where as few as one person on a jury can fail to put someone away, which is a greater injustice.  It's much less likely that twelve people convict an innocent man that it is for one person to sympathize with a guilty person and nullify the jury.
 
2013-02-16 06:13:54 PM  
We can't have a thread about lawyers without some douche quoting the whole "kill all the lawyers" thing, can we? This is why we can't have nice things!
 
2013-02-16 06:23:16 PM  

cman: Its a shame that one cannot get the chair for ruining lives like this.

Why is this farker not behind bars yet?


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
2013-02-16 06:29:53 PM  

alexjoss: We can't have a thread about lawyers without some douche quoting the whole "kill all the lawyers" thing, can we? This is why we can't have nice things!


Can we do it without quoting Paula Poundstone?
 
2013-02-16 06:31:23 PM  

Champion of the Sun: quiet_american: overcorrection in favor of individual citizens where more people go free is infinitely preferable to overcorrection in favor of the state where the prisons are overflowing. let a few guilty people out so that you better ensure you don't have innocent people in prison.

No, currently it takes twelve people (varies by state to state) to put a person away.  You want to go to a system where as few as one person on a jury can fail to put someone away, which is a greater injustice.  It's much less likely that twelve people convict an innocent man that it is for one person to sympathize with a guilty person and nullify the jury.


Let me get this right, it's a 'greater injustice' that someone is 'failed' to be put away, than for one person to be able to invalidate a bogus prosecution?

Just your word choice reveals so much: it's not about 'failing' to be put away, it's whether a jury of your peers can agree that 1) you are guilty, 2) you deserve to be punished, and 3) the extent of your punishment. The way you speak about it it's as though the state has a right to 'put away' whomever they want and the individual defendant and individual jurors have no say in the matter. If they do, they're messing up the game that the prosecutor is playing.

Many jurors don't realize how little they get to see. How many witnesses are prevented from testifying, how much evidence gets in front of them, and even how many defenses the defendant is allowed to give.

There is so much potential for prosecutorial abuse, and abuse of the system and process, that the one juror is obligated to stand up and do what's right, even if that means saying the law itself is invalid. Thankfully TFA shows why this is so important.


If you were just trolling, 8/10, rustled my jimmies.
 
2013-02-16 06:39:46 PM  

quiet_american: Champion of the Sun: quiet_american: overcorrection in favor of individual citizens where more people go free is infinitely preferable to overcorrection in favor of the state where the prisons are overflowing. let a few guilty people out so that you better ensure you don't have innocent people in prison.

No, currently it takes twelve people (varies by state to state) to put a person away.  You want to go to a system where as few as one person on a jury can fail to put someone away, which is a greater injustice.  It's much less likely that twelve people convict an innocent man that it is for one person to sympathize with a guilty person and nullify the jury.

Let me get this right, it's a 'greater injustice' that someone is 'failed' to be put away, than for one person to be able to invalidate a bogus prosecution?

Just your word choice reveals so much: it's not about 'failing' to be put away, it's whether a jury of your peers can agree that 1) you are guilty, 2) you deserve to be punished, and 3) the extent of your punishment. The way you speak about it it's as though the state has a right to 'put away' whomever they want and the individual defendant and individual jurors have no say in the matter. If they do, they're messing up the game that the prosecutor is playing.

Many jurors don't realize how little they get to see. How many witnesses are prevented from testifying, how much evidence gets in front of them, and even how many defenses the defendant is allowed to give.

There is so much potential for prosecutorial abuse, and abuse of the system and process, that the one juror is obligated to stand up and do what's right, even if that means saying the law itself is invalid. Thankfully TFA shows why this is so important.


If you were just trolling, 8/10, rustled my jimmies.


That's some authentic frontier gibberish and a stunning display of innumeracy.

In theory it's be great to have one juror stand up to injustice.  I'd love if that were the case.  However, what would actually happen in the real world is that many guilty people would go free.  Really guilty people, who are guilty of really bad crimes.  If some anti-government nutjob kills a state worker, and they get put on trial with a jury full of Texans, nullification would get him off on the charge.  It's a dangerous tool, which is why no serious legal scholar supports it.  It's way too easy to abuse.  This isn't ten guilty going free instead of one innocent going to jail, it's more like thousands of guilty going free, and maybe an innocent person going to jail.  And if a juror sees misconduct by a prosecutor, wouldn't the rest of the jury see it too?  I don't think you understand how this works.
 
2013-02-16 07:00:25 PM  

Champion of the Sun: quiet_american:

That's some authentic frontier gibberish and a stunning display of innumeracy.
In theory it's be great to have one juror stand up to injustice.  I'd love if that were the case.  However, what would actually happen in the real world is that many guilty people would go free.  Really guilty people, who are guilty of really bad crimes.  If some anti-government nutjob kills a state worker, and they get put on trial with a jury full of Texans, nullification would get him off on the charge.  It's a dangerous tool, which is why no serious legal scholar supports it.  It's way too easy to abuse.  This isn't ten guilty going free instead of one innocent going to jail, it's more like thousands of guilty going free, and maybe an innocent person going to jail.  And if a juror sees misconduct by a prosecutor, wouldn't the rest of the jury see it too?  I don't think you understand how this works.


I enjoy your new legal definitions. People are now "really guilty" and guilty of "really bad crimes" as opposed to "somewhat guilty" and "kind of bad crimes"

I also enjoy your understanding of the jury process, that they all act in concert and as one voice. Nullification would just "get him off on the charge" because Texans love nutjobs. Great logic. It's so much better that innocent people go to jail, because, hey, this abstract legal threat to potential government workers is more important.

You've identified one possible minute obscure problem and you use it to invalidate the entire spectrum of actual moral wrongs currently existing. Three million people in prison, and your answer is a form of "tough shiat" to people who get bowled over by prosecutors, and then their juries are lied to about their actual abilities and authority.

One of the many problems is that each jury decision is taken out of context to the rest of the case. Guilt is determined. Punishment is assessed. And yet many juries want to hear what the range of punishment might be, they want to know the consequences of their actions. Yet that's purposefully denied to them. Look at the abuse of the "three strikes and your out" systems, where minor infractions can result in enormous consequences, and all a jury knows is the simple matter put before them. Our system is throwing people into prison and it's not the prejudice of Texans or simply a 'law and order' mentality as you suggest and build up a straw man about, it's the system itself that removes important and material context from jury decision-making. If jurors feel pressured to render a decision, they ought to have this option as well.

You say it's a dangerous tool, but it's a dangerous situation we're in where people are committing numerous felonies a day, where prosecutors purposefully overcharge defendants, where public defender offices are used to process people through the system instead of giving them any meaningful right to indigent counsel. The danger is from the tools being used by this system to imprison millions. And the secondary danger is from the state sycophants who find ways to justify the actions by the state to unjustly imprison people.

Since prosecutors won't abide by even the most minimal pro-defendant rights, because Brady is effectively unenforceable, nullification is an important tool to counter this dangerous system.

And yes, part of our system is that guilty, and even "really guilty" people might go free. Because they deserve due process. They deserve a fair hearing. And the balance of those rights is tilted in their favor, not those of the state.

It's truly disgusting and reprehensible that you'd justify imprisoning the innocent.


Again, if trolling, 9/10, jimmies sufficiently rustled.
 
2013-02-16 07:12:14 PM  
Judge should be put to death
 
2013-02-16 07:12:51 PM  

quiet_american: It's truly disgusting and reprehensible that you'd justify imprisoning the innocent.


Not at all what I was doing.  Nullification only works against unjust laws, not unjust process.

Sentencing minimums and plea deals are travesties in my opinion, but nullification isn't the way to fix that.

Look up nullification and lynchings
 
2013-02-16 07:17:10 PM  
I grew up in Williamson County and have witnessed the railroading of suspects my entire life.  Williamson county has long held the reputation of a place of ridiculous conduct by its uneducated Sherrif's deputies and its overzealous, narcissistic prsecutors.  It gives me great schadenfreude knowing Ken Anderson's life is finally getting what he has so certainly earned it.

He sent one of my best friends to prison for 15 years for having 20 hits of acid when we were juniors in high school. This man and those who've worked with and for him have never had any qualms about ruining the lives of those and the families of people who came into his courtroom. For this pile of pig excrement to complain he has had to spend his life savings defending these accusations truly shows his colors.  He "earned" his life savings by stealing many peoples' lives. May the man go to prison, die from ass-cancer 26 years after and burn in hell
 
2013-02-16 07:20:30 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Considering you have to pass the MPRE to even sit for the bar in most states, seems like ethics is stressed sufficiently. Granted, almost all of these shiat heel prosecutors went to law school before the MPRE it's a moot point.

I hate elected prosecutors, it just begs for injustice. But I can't see a system where a bunch of nepotism hires prosecuting our laws would be better either. Maybe we should do away with dedicated prosecutors altogether, do it by appointment. Put your name on a list, and you get called to either prosecute or defend, no choice in the matter. Wouldn't work in a lot of cases because you need some specific knowledge, but it could work. Maybe a central arbiter of who to charge and who not to, so we still have prosecutorial discretion, but that person wouldn't argue the cases. Things like OJ and Casey Anthony wouldn't happen anymore, prosecutors looking for a boost in their careers wouldn't be able to bungle and mischarge people for their own gain.

Ultimately, the flawed system we have now is the best that can be done.


Pft, anyone could take a course and pass the MPRE. It's a multiple choice test. I never knew anyone who failed it. It teaches "ethics" like the STARS test teaches math. Knowing what you're "supposed" to do and actually doing it are totally different things.

I like your idea of appointed prosecutors, and I'd extend that to appointed defense counsel. Let the defendant hire whoever he wants to prepare his case--and the state can have whoever they want prepare theirs--but when it comes to actually presenting the thing, draw lots or whatever and whoever's on the list has to actually argue the case. Then there could be no personal theatrics, and no personal glory or failure when the case comes to trial, no "Dream Team" and all that nonsense.
 
2013-02-16 07:46:18 PM  
 I'm gunna go out on a limb a say that the defendant was black.

I dunno, but in these cases in Texas when they're all gung-ho on someone when the evidence is so weak that always seems to be the case.

Hypnozombie
 
2013-02-16 07:56:23 PM  
I blame GOD


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1JawSJJggERed State

/Commie Bastards
//The second amendment was meant for the south
///That is that North to USE on the south
////Fark Texas
//Also Fark North Texas
//And Presbyterians
//And evangelicals
//And Religious people
//LOTS OF SLASHIES
 
2013-02-16 08:22:37 PM  
Article is crap.

First of all, the article makes it seem like Ken Anderson withheld important DNA evidence that later came to light and proved the innocence of the man originally convicted. But back when this guy was prosecuted, there was no such thing as DNA evidence. Ken Anderson would have no way of being able to tell whose blood was on the bandana.

What the former attorneys of the man convicted actually accused Ken Anderson of was not disclosing a report that a neighbor saw a suspicious man nearby the crime scene and a supplemental police report where the defendant's mother-in-law told the police that her three year old grandson witnessed the murder and told her a monster did it. It looks like Ken Anderson responded to these accusations by saying he didn't remember the details of a case he tried over twenty years ago but he believed if he had received the supplement, he must have disclosed it. Apparently whoever was judging the dispute ended up believing Ken Anderson over the former attorneys and he was cleared of misconduct.

I don't think that is unreasonable. Are you going to remember the exact details of some project you worked on twenty years ago? Sure, it involved a murder, but for someone like Ken Anderson, a five day murder trial was probably fairly routine. For the same reason, I would be skeptical if the defense attorneys from that case testified with certainty that they never received the supplement. Neither of these are smoking gun pieces of evidence. Sure, a suspicious man seen nearby the scene casts some doubt, but it is the sort of detail that is not going to be particularly memorable. Keep in mind that during a murder investigation, police are going to be asking everyone around the area if they saw anything suspicious.  The other supplemental report may have been disregarded entirely by the defense attorneys on the grounds that the three year old witness would have been unreliable or a risk to the defense.

It would not really be surprising that when a defense attorney opens his files from a five day long trial that occurred twenty five years ago, it might be missing a police report or two. The newspaper seems to take the position that the former district attorney was so overzealous that he obviously cast justice aside by concealing documents just so he could win a trial. Those are serious accusations and I would think that normally when someone makes a serious accusation like that, we apply apply the standard of innocent until proven guilty. I think this applies especially in this case given the fact that there was a contested, under oath hearing regarding this dispute and whoever presided over it cleared Ken Anderson of misconduct.

I don't like hearing about people who were convicted and imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit and I understand when it happens, we want to look for people to blame. The prosecutor is an obvious target but I think it is wrong to just automatically place all the blame on him or place the burden on him to explain, in retrospect, all of the ways he could have done something differently 25 years ago. The prosecutor wasn't the only person responsible for the guilty verdict, either the defense attorneys failed to raise any reasonable doubts or if they did, the jury did not reach the correct verdict.
 
2013-02-16 08:34:43 PM  

Lt_Silvio: Article is crap


So he probably disclosed those reports and the defense attorney just ignored two different eye witnesses that would've cleared his client?  That's what you're going with?
 
2013-02-16 09:10:10 PM  

Lt_Silvio: Article is crap.

First of all, the article makes it seem like Ken Anderson withheld important DNA evidence that later came to light and proved the innocence of the man originally convicted. But back when this guy was prosecuted, there was no such thing as DNA evidence. Ken Anderson would have no way of being able to tell whose blood was on the bandana.

What the former attorneys of the man convicted actually accused Ken Anderson of was not disclosing a report that a neighbor saw a suspicious man nearby the crime scene and a supplemental police report where the defendant's mother-in-law told the police that her three year old grandson witnessed the murder and told her a monster did it. It looks like Ken Anderson responded to these accusations by saying he didn't remember the details of a case he tried over twenty years ago but he believed if he had received the supplement, he must have disclosed it. Apparently whoever was judging the dispute ended up believing Ken Anderson over the former attorneys and he was cleared of misconduct.

I don't think that is unreasonable. Are you going to remember the exact details of some project you worked on twenty years ago? Sure, it involved a murder, but for someone like Ken Anderson, a five day murder trial was probably fairly routine. For the same reason, I would be skeptical if the defense attorneys from that case testified with certainty that they never received the supplement. Neither of these are smoking gun pieces of evidence. Sure, a suspicious man seen nearby the scene casts some doubt, but it is the sort of detail that is not going to be particularly memorable. Keep in mind that during a murder investigation, police are going to be asking everyone around the area if they saw anything suspicious.  The other supplemental report may have been disregarded entirely by the defense attorneys on the grounds that the three year old witness would have been unreliable or a risk to the defense.

It would not really be surprising tha ...


OK-- maybe the article is crap, but is based off of facts-- tons of them. If you base your opinion off the article alone, I can see your point, but there is ALOT more to it.   Ken Anderson knew there was a bandana found with blood on it behind the house and he also knew Michael Morton's son saw saw the murder, described the murder scene in a way ONLY someone who saw it happen would know (There was a suitcase found on top of the body upon its discovery.  The child said he saw a man smash her face and put it on top of her).  This was in the Sheriff's report.  Ken Anderson knew these facts didnt line up with his presumed theory of Morton killing her while wearing scuba gear, therefore he excluded them.  The legal way he did this was by not asking the lead investigator to testify.  He simply had his mind made up and didnt want to be bothered with the facts.
This article doesnt tell the whole story as the entire story is deep.  Not only did the Wilco team hide the facts then, they fought DNA testing 19 years later for 6 years --all the way up to the point the Innocence project kicked their asses in court and got permission to test the bandana.  During the course of events leading up to Morton getting released, Anderson and his ass clown DA buddy, John Bradley still said they believed he was guilty-- totally ignoring the DNA evidence pointing to the evidence a stranger committed the murders-- backing up what the neighbors said to investigators and what the investigators knew his son said.
It wasnt until the DNA came back to match Norwood whose DNA also matched the murder scene of Debra Baker that they finally said they felt it deserved a "second look".  This clown show has been going on here for years. It took tenacious lawyers from out of town to hand the Williamson county's DA office's asses to them and not stop fighting. This has been needing to happen for years.  It is about time their filthy laundry has been hung out for the world to see.  -- and man, there are sihtstains all over it.

What is so ironic is this same court is trying Mark Norwood for the murder of Christine Morton and is now using the exact same evidence in their prosectution of Norwood that they vehemently withheld from the defense team of Michael Morton. The size of their balls is beyond comprehension. Granted, the DA now was handed this pile of shiat from Bradley after he got his ass kicked in the election. Conservative WIlco was so fed up and embarrassed of John Bradley after the world saw this case, they elected a female DA with zero experience prosecuting felony cases.
 
2013-02-16 09:11:07 PM  

softshoes: Texas is big on frying people for this type of thing. How the hell did he escape that?




He is white.
 
2013-02-16 09:17:46 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Lt_Silvio: Article is crap

So he probably disclosed those reports and the defense attorney just ignored two different eye witnesses that would've cleared his client?  That's what you're going with?


I don't know what happened, I wasn't even born when this case went to trial, that is how old it is. I never said I thought the defense attorneys ignored these reports, what I said is they might not remember them twenty five years after the fact. You act like the defense could easily win the case with this information but you don't know that, unless you have additional information not contained in this article. You have no idea what evidence the prosecution presented during its case. There was a suspicious man in the woods nearby the house. Well, I do not know for sure but if the theory of the prosecution was the defendant killed his wife after she refused to have sex with him, I am guessing she was in the bedroom, not outside in the woods. Now, would this still be something the defense attorney would probably want to point out? Maybe, or maybe they had better defenses they focused more on.

The supplement seems even less memorable. The prosecution's theory was that the defendant wore a scuba suit so his son would not recognize him. So basically the defense attorney was on notice that the son thought it was a monster who murdered his mother and that he could not identify the father as the killer. All that the supplement says is that the son said the same thing to his grandmother that he probably testified to in court. I doubt that anyone involved in the case would remember this supplement twenty five years after the fact.
 
2013-02-16 09:54:35 PM  
poe_zlaw:

You seem to know more about this then I do, maybe there could be a good case brought against Ken Anderson. I don't know that choosing to have his lead investigator not testify is shady, seeing as how the defense could have still called him if they wanted to. But if he did actually know about these reports and did not disclose to the Defense, then yeah, he committed misconduct and clearly was in the wrong and should be criticized in the news. I still would say this article did not make a good case against him.

Also will say I don't agree with fighting to prevent DNA being used to review evidence after the fact. If Ken Anderson was part of that, I think it is worthy of criticism as well.
 
2013-02-16 10:43:51 PM  

Lt_Silvio: poe_zlaw:

You seem to know more about this then I do, maybe there could be a good case brought against Ken Anderson. I don't know that choosing to have his lead investigator not testify is shady, seeing as how the defense could have still called him if they wanted to. But if he did actually know about these reports and did not disclose to the Defense, then yeah, he committed misconduct and clearly was in the wrong and should be criticized in the news. I still would say this article did not make a good case against him.

Also will say I don't agree with fighting to prevent DNA being used to review evidence after the fact. If Ken Anderson was part of that, I think it is worthy of criticism as well.


Im from WIlliamson county.  This story has been followed here closely for the past few years-- There is a very good, popular magazine in Texas called Texas Monthly.  It has also done a superb job following this case and has done several very long articles detailing the case.  I highly suggest anyone who is interested in this case to read them.
 
2013-02-16 11:10:25 PM  

Lt_Silvio: Champion of the Sun: Lt_Silvio: Article is crap

So he probably disclosed those reports and the defense attorney just ignored two different eye witnesses that would've cleared his client?  That's what you're going with?

I don't know what happened, I wasn't even born when this case went to trial, that is how old it is. I never said I thought the defense attorneys ignored these reports, what I said is they might not remember them twenty five years after the fact. You act like the defense could easily win the case with this information but you don't know that, unless you have additional information not contained in this article. You have no idea what evidence the prosecution presented during its case. There was a suspicious man in the woods nearby the house. Well, I do not know for sure but if the theory of the prosecution was the defendant killed his wife after she refused to have sex with him, I am guessing she was in the bedroom, not outside in the woods. Now, would this still be something the defense attorney would probably want to point out? Maybe, or maybe they had better defenses they focused more on.

The supplement seems even less memorable. The prosecution's theory was that the defendant wore a scuba suit so his son would not recognize him. So basically the defense attorney was on notice that the son thought it was a monster who murdered his mother and that he could not identify the father as the killer. All that the supplement says is that the son said the same thing to his grandmother that he probably testified to in court. I doubt that anyone involved in the case would remember this supplement twenty five years after the fact.


So why are you defending the case so ardently and so sure the whole story is crap, "Lieutenant"?
 
2013-02-17 01:03:08 AM  

Champion of the Sun: Maybe we should do away with dedicated prosecutors altogether, do it by appointment.


I really like this idea.  When an attorney is admitted to the bar in a given state, his/her name goes on a list of candidates for "prosecutor duty," just as ordinary citizens must be available for jury service.

Same story for public defenders.  If you can't afford to retain your own attorney, one is randomly assigned to you from a pool that includes every lawyer in the area.

Why doesn't it already work this way?
 
2013-02-17 01:10:54 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Lt_Silvio: Champion of the Sun: Lt_Silvio: Article is crap

So he probably disclosed those reports and the defense attorney just ignored two different eye witnesses that would've cleared his client?  That's what you're going with?

I don't know what happened, I wasn't even born when this case went to trial, that is how old it is. I never said I thought the defense attorneys ignored these reports, what I said is they might not remember them twenty five years after the fact. You act like the defense could easily win the case with this information but you don't know that, unless you have additional information not contained in this article. You have no idea what evidence the prosecution presented during its case. There was a suspicious man in the woods nearby the house. Well, I do not know for sure but if the theory of the prosecution was the defendant killed his wife after she refused to have sex with him, I am guessing she was in the bedroom, not outside in the woods. Now, would this still be something the defense attorney would probably want to point out? Maybe, or maybe they had better defenses they focused more on.

The supplement seems even less memorable. The prosecution's theory was that the defendant wore a scuba suit so his son would not recognize him. So basically the defense attorney was on notice that the son thought it was a monster who murdered his mother and that he could not identify the father as the killer. All that the supplement says is that the son said the same thing to his grandmother that he probably testified to in court. I doubt that anyone involved in the case would remember this supplement twenty five years after the fact.

So why are you defending the case so ardently and so sure the whole story is crap, "Lieutenant"?


I don't understand what you are posting about. I am not defending any case. I believe the man who was convicted was in fact innocent. Nothing I wrote suggests otherwise. I did defend Ken Anderson, arguing that, according to the information in the article, there was no reason to believe he did anything wrong. I continue to agree with that. I concede there maybe information not in this article that would implicate Ken Anderson but no one has posted it. I never said this whole story was crap. I didn't dispute a single fact in the story, I only criticized that it reached conclusions that were not consistent with the facts described in the article.

So I am not defending any case nor calling the "whole story" crap. I am saying the article is poorly written. It is not persuasive for several reasons which I already pointed out. You do not know anything about me so I would avoid using quotation marks when referring to me unless you can back it up, which you cannot.
 
2013-02-17 01:13:50 AM  

mesmer242: 2005 - Innocence Project/Michael Morton try to get access to other evidence and get the bandana DNA tested. John Bradley blocks efforts for five years.


john bradley was beaten to death by ninjas. the same ninja who were threatening ross perot's family.

seriously, spending 5 years blocking access to evidence should lead to an automatic death sentence. no trial. no jury. your victim gets to kill you. legally.
 
2013-02-17 08:47:14 AM  

Man On Pink Corner: Champion of the Sun: Maybe we should do away with dedicated prosecutors altogether, do it by appointment.

I really like this idea.  When an attorney is admitted to the bar in a given state, his/her name goes on a list of candidates for "prosecutor duty," just as ordinary citizens must be available for jury service.

Same story for public defenders.  If you can't afford to retain your own attorney, one is randomly assigned to you from a pool that includes every lawyer in the area.

Why doesn't it already work this way?


We allow defendants to pick their own counsel when they can afford it.  Don't need some brand new attorney prosecuting against the Johnny Cochranes of the world.  Rich people already take advantage of the system, so that's a major drawback.  For minor crimes it would work.
 
2013-02-17 09:53:54 AM  

namatad: mesmer242: 2005 - Innocence Project/Michael Morton try to get access to other evidence and get the bandana DNA tested. John Bradley blocks efforts for five years.

john bradley was beaten to death by ninjas. the same ninja who were threatening ross perot's family.

seriously, spending 5 years blocking access to evidence should lead to an automatic death sentence. no trial. no jury. your victim gets to kill you. legally.


He lost re-election in the primary and basically everybody hates him to the point that he's going to have to start his own small practice to survive. No one will give him a job. That's almost as sweet as ninjas.
 
2013-02-17 10:03:27 AM  

Lt_Silvio: I continue to agree with that. I concede there maybe information not in this article that would implicate Ken Anderson but no one has posted it. I never said this whole story was crap. I didn't dispute a single fact in the story, I only criticized that it reached conclusions that were not consistent with the facts described in the article.


Ya know, I dont agree with your position here, but I see your point. I was involverd in a scientology thread the other day. People were saying that the cult participated in kidnapping=, murder, blackmail, extortion, and the whole 9 yards. I had always heard these things as well. I asked for sources, and along with two solid ones, I got a slew of news articles making uncubstantiated accusations that were so poorly sourced they'd make a high school journalism student blush.

When I tried to point out the 'evidence' being offered wasn't evidence at all, I immediately was a scientology apologist, a moron, 'unbelievably obtuse' and actually was threatened with ostracism for going against fark group think about a cult (oh the irony).

Like I said, I disagree with your point of view, but trying to make people here see that you are merely commenting on the quality of the article cited makes you the moron, not the mob with a startling lack of reading comprehension.
 
2013-02-17 10:16:48 PM  

Champion of the Sun: We allow defendants to pick their own counsel when they can afford it. Don't need some brand new attorney prosecuting against the Johnny Cochranes of the world. Rich people already take advantage of the system, so that's a major drawback. For minor crimes it would work.


Hmm, that does sound like a valid point.
 
2013-02-19 08:27:10 PM  

quiet_american: The people are the final judge.


The judge is nothing more than a referee.  He's there to make sure the court proceedings are followed correctly.  He is NOT there to decide the guilt or innocence or on whether the law itself is just.  Any judge who states (and this happens all too often) that the jury must convict if the evidence proves guilt even if they disagree with the law, is a lying sack o'shiat.

The jury is there to judge the defendant AND the law itself.
 
2013-02-19 08:30:20 PM  

Champion of the Sun: In Texas, people love that shiat, so if nullification became the norm, you're gonna see a lot more of it.


Jury nullification requires a majority (or unanimous) decision by the jury.  A couple of rednecks protecting "one of their own" won't result in an epidemic of home shootings.
 
2013-02-19 10:06:26 PM  

Champion of the Sun: quiet_american: It's truly disgusting and reprehensible that you'd justify imprisoning the innocent.

Not at all what I was doing.  Nullification only works against unjust laws, not unjust process.

Sentencing minimums and plea deals are travesties in my opinion, but nullification isn't the way to fix that.

Look up nullification and lynchings



You're using one period of time in one region of the country to invalidate a perfectly reasonable process.

And you're also flat wrong that nullification can't serve to undo improper process. Look up nullification.

The system was set up to allow for multiple points of the process to ensure injustices were rare. Because we all delegate our responsibilities and obligations, such as what you've said, that's lost. The police have the discretion in most cases not to record a crime. A DA has an option whether to accept the charges. A judge has the option to dismiss them. And a jury has every right to correct that process at the last moment.

Their decision can be based on a reading of the law, the situation and context, the process or at least the amount they've been aware of, and for any other reason they want.
 
Displayed 36 of 136 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report