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.

(Russia Today)   News: A Kansas City man was released from prison three decades after a wrongful rape conviction. Fark: The Clerk who helped the inmate exonerate himself with DNA evidence was fired   (rt.com) divider line 112
    More: Asinine, DNA, Kansas City, DNA evidence, inmate exonerate, Innocence Project, legal representation, rape kits, Kansas City Police Department  
•       •       •

9929 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Aug 2013 at 1:15 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-01 01:18:39 PM
The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'
 
2013-08-01 01:19:57 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


I bet he can sleep at night, though. Not to mention he doesn't have to avoid rooms with mirrors.
 
2013-08-01 01:20:25 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


That may be true, but 9 months before her retirement.....Harshin my buzz.
 
2013-08-01 01:22:03 PM
I don't see how providing a copy of a successful application that is already public can in any way be considered "providing legal advice".
 
2013-08-01 01:22:10 PM
FTFA:  both the prosecutor and attorney"had a problem" with her intervention in the case

Yes, people usually have a problem with their incompetence being exposed.
 
2013-08-01 01:22:29 PM

released from prison three decades after a wrongful rape conviction


I would be the bitterest bastard who ever bittered. 30 years, down the tubes.

And they should have been the good years: the guy was in prison from age 19 to age 49.
 
2013-08-01 01:23:53 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'




It nothing like that.

It's more like a bartender seeing someone choke to death on a meatball sand which and performing the Hymlick maneuver.

This was simply a case of Lawyers defending their turf.
 
2013-08-01 01:24:23 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


Why?
 
2013-08-01 01:24:26 PM
FTFA: Buffey's case is similar to Nelson's in that the obstacles to obtain potentially exonerating DNA evidence are high. In addition to needing the requisite legal knowledge to file a proper motion with the court, a 2009 US Supreme Court ruling stated that a defendant willing to pay for a DNA test at his own expense was not entitled to do so. Chief Justice John G. Roberts said that such an allowance risked "unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice."

So in short, justice and truth be damned if you can't invoke the proper magical incantations to appease the brokers of life and death.

Pure perversion.
 
2013-08-01 01:24:37 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  both the prosecutor and attorney"had a problem" with her intervention in the case

Yes, people usually have a problem with their incompetence being exposed.


She'll be lucky if she doesn't end up in an airport waiting room in Russia.
 
2013-08-01 01:24:52 PM
Yea, if there's one thing we can't have, its innocent people being let out of prison.  Wait...what?
 
2013-08-01 01:24:53 PM
I'm trying to understand this. The Clerk points them to a document that is a matter of public record to help them get what they need. Why is that grounds for a terminatin'?

I'd say it's more analagous to a check-in nurse saying, 'You might want to get a second opinion. Read this.'
 
2013-08-01 01:25:23 PM

angrycrank: I don't see how providing a copy of a successful application that is already public can in any way be considered "providing legal advice".


The legal system isn't about justice, it's about punishment. We let an innocent man go and that sort of thing is frowned upon.
 
2013-08-01 01:25:46 PM
In other words.

1) we don't want to pay your pension

2) damnit, now we have to find out who did it again.
 
2013-08-01 01:26:08 PM
F*cking clerk... helping the public and all.
 
2013-08-01 01:26:56 PM

Weaver95: The legal system isn't about justice, it's about punishment.


The profits of the Prison Industrial Complex must be preserved at all cost.
 
2013-08-01 01:27:06 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

-=-
You would not feel that way if YOU were in jail for something you did not do, you would have been thankful someone had the decency to help you... So Fark You Corporate dick suckers.
 
2013-08-01 01:27:10 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  both the prosecutor and attorney"had a problem" with her intervention in the case

Yes, people usually have a problem with their incompetence being exposed.


With a special emphasis on attorney/judge types. Did she do the right thing? ABSOLUTELY.
 
2013-08-01 01:27:34 PM

Carousel Beast: netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

Why?



Because The Process is more important than any other consideration (be it a life wasted in prison, or a life ended due to a medication error).

Better for to waste any number of innocent lives than to violate The Process.
 
2013-08-01 01:27:43 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: released from prison three decades after a wrongful rape conviction


I would be the bitterest bastard who ever bittered. 30 years, down the tubes.

And they should have been the good years: the guy was in prison from age 19 to age 49.


Hopefully he get's compensation for the time lost, hopefully he'll get enough to retire to a beach-front home somewhere

/Nah, who am I kidding? Kansas will fight tooth-and-nail to not pay him a cent for their blundering
 
2013-08-01 01:28:24 PM
Once convicted you have no right to evidence that can clearly show your innocence. Link
 
2013-08-01 01:28:48 PM
she should have been allowed to finish her final 9 months ans get her pension this is a case of butthurt lawyers taking it out on a clerk.
 
2013-08-01 01:31:02 PM
www.filmsquish.com

Good for them.
 
2013-08-01 01:31:15 PM

netweavr: It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


No, it is analogous to a nurse explaining to a patient where the button on the intercom was - and then the doctor and head nurse (judge and DA) firing the nurse because they were getting their jollies off from the screams.
 
2013-08-01 01:32:49 PM

netweavr: It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


No it isn't.  Its analogous to a knowing someone needs information that they're legally entitled to see, and giving them a copy of that information because you know they don't have the knowledge to help themselves or the money to hire someone to do it.

She saw someone struggling against a system that was WRONG but ultimately convinced it should fark him anyway because he didn't have the education or money to fight back "properly."  It isn't like the freaking facts of his case changed, he just copied a motion filed by a lawyer this time and it immediately worked and got him out of jail.  Now because his exoneration pissed off whoever decided, "fark that guy, I put SOMEONE in jail for the crime.  it may not necessarily be the correct person, but I nailed his ass so he's staying in prison," this woman gets fired?  farking ridiculous.
 
2013-08-01 01:33:14 PM
If they had just hurried up and executed him already, she could have kept her job.
 
2013-08-01 01:33:21 PM

Wile_E_Canuck: I'd say it's more analagous to a check-in nurse saying, 'You might want to get a second opinion. Read this.'


That would get most any nurse fired. Unfortunately.
 
2013-08-01 01:33:28 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.



No.
 
2013-08-01 01:34:05 PM
alloveralbany.com
 
2013-08-01 01:34:28 PM

Cheron: Once convicted you have no right to evidence that can clearly show your innocence. Link


Oh so the conservative members of the SCOTUS sided with keeping people from exonerating evidence....color me shocked.
 
2013-08-01 01:34:56 PM
Not sure if the handing over of a legal document is cause for what happened to the clerk or not, but I do find it strange that when asked for access to more DNA for further testing to look for the true criminal suddenly there are roadblocks because "our state does not approve the lab".
 
2013-08-01 01:35:21 PM

cwolf20: In other words.

1) we don't want to pay your pension

2) damnit, now we have to find out who did it again.


Her pension will go toward the lawsuit he will file.  She's really helping him x2 time.
 
2013-08-01 01:35:27 PM
alloveralbany.com
 
2013-08-01 01:35:39 PM

cwolf20: In other words.

1) we don't want to pay your pension

2) damnit, now we have to find out who did it again. deal with the public embarrassment of being publically proven wrong.


FTFY. There's little to no chance they will pull this old case out and try to work on it again. The main problem is that is makes them look bad.
 
2013-08-01 01:35:50 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: released from prison three decades after a wrongful rape conviction


I would be the bitterest bastard who ever bittered. 30 years, down the tubes.

And they should have been the good years: the guy was in prison from age 19 to age 49.


If he had earned an average of $50k per year during those years that comes up to $1.5 million. I should think the state owes him that as a minimum for his lost earning potential.  Then there would be the compensation he should receive for lost liberty (I would think that should be a much higher number).  Then there should be compensation for pain and suffering (again a large number). Finally, the state should face punitive damages (also a high number).

I think the state would be fortunate to get off with only a $10 Million payout.

The court clerk should also get a handsome improper temmination settlement.
 
2013-08-01 01:35:59 PM
What an f'd up story. I'm glad i live in Texas where that guy would have likely been executed and that poor clerk wouldn't have had to lose her job.
 
2013-08-01 01:37:05 PM

This text is now purple: [alloveralbany.com image 525x253]


damn you!
 
2013-08-01 01:37:57 PM
Dare thee not to contravene the judgement and will of your "betters".

Day by day our civilization is becoming this:

l3.yimg.com
 
2013-08-01 01:38:23 PM

Weaver95: angrycrank: I don't see how providing a copy of a successful application that is already public can in any way be considered "providing legal advice".

The legal system isn't about justice, it's about punishment. We let an innocent man go and that sort of thing is frowned upon.


Scalia has stated that as long as no intentional maleficence was committed, it is completely proper for a prisoner to be executed, even if we know 100% that he is innocent. So not just "don't let an innocent man go free", but actively seek to kill him, knowing he is innocent.
 
2013-08-01 01:41:31 PM
Knew the man was seeking a motion for DNA testing. Knew the man was denied the motion twice. Knew this was due to his lack of ability to prepare a case. Knew of other motions for DNA testing which had been successful. Frankly, if you had this type of knowledge and did nothing, I would say this would have been a subversion of justice. This is not an opinion on his motion itself but the barest legal aid with no presumption of success.
 
2013-08-01 01:42:24 PM

Wile_E_Canuck: I'd say it's more analagous to a check-in nurse saying, 'You might want to get a second opinion. Read this.'


She wasn't changing what he was trying to do, just show him how to do it correctly.  Our check-in nurse gave him a hospital map after he couldn't find the doctor's office by himself
 
2013-08-01 01:42:25 PM
And the best part is the guy can't sue the prosecutor or the arresting officer because of immunity laws. So he only has one option left to truly get justice.

If I were the prosecutor and arresting officer and possibly the judge I would be spending a lot of time looking over my shoulder.

After all he already did 30 years what does it matter if he does the rest of his life after wrecking the shiat of the people who wrongfully put him there. If I were on the jury for that case
 
2013-08-01 01:42:50 PM
Sounds to me like two lawsuits are coming...
 
2013-08-01 01:43:06 PM

Weaver95: angrycrank: I don't see how providing a copy of a successful application that is already public can in any way be considered "providing legal advice".

The legal system isn't about justice, it's about punishment. We let an innocent man go and that sort of thing is frowned upon.


Wait, is this a Zimdog thread?
 
2013-08-01 01:44:32 PM

KellyX: Sounds to me like two lawsuits are coming...


I'd love to be on the jury awarding him a fat sum and ensuring the louts that got him fired suffer.
 
2013-08-01 01:44:54 PM

RembrandtQEinstein: And the best part is the guy can't sue the prosecutor or the arresting officer because of immunity laws. So he only has one option left to truly get justice.

If I were the prosecutor and arresting officer and possibly the judge I would be spending a lot of time looking over my shoulder.

After all he already did 30 years what does it matter if he does the rest of his life after wrecking the shiat of the people who wrongfully put him there. If I were on the jury for that case


Or: just follow them around until they turned to you, shoot them dead, then explain to the cops that since you knew from direct experience what they were willing to do to you for no reason at all, you were standing your ground.
 
2013-08-01 01:45:20 PM
You people realize she was still given her full pension, right?
 
2013-08-01 01:45:51 PM
Wasn't even supposed to be here today.

/Hey, guess which court is going to get focused on by Innocence Project.
 
2013-08-01 01:46:41 PM

netweavr: It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx.


No, no it's not. Not even remotely so.

Please try to be less stupid.
 
2013-08-01 01:48:05 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


I completely disagree, and I walked this particular line 100 times myself before I was a lawyer.  The clerk was asked for a public record, she was pro-active in assisting a member of the public in locating that record.  She did not tell her what to file or what to say in her own motion.  She was providing technical procedural advice not legal advice under the meaning of the law.

I ran the Pro-se information Project for a Family court just outside of DC and I was often faced with the exact same dilemma.   I was a only a paralegal (with a judge's signature stamp in my desk) so I could technically only tell people HOW to file things  not WHAT to file, so I danced this dance all  the time.  FOr example I got a series of simple standard form approved for a lot of common domestic filings and motions approved; but I was only allowed to give them out if they checked off a form requesting the documents, not if they verbally asked for them.  A chief motivator for going to law school was the fact that I would often have an attorney or two in my office and I would walk them through exactly what they needed to file and what the motion needed to say to get some sort of action from the court, but if five minutes later, a person who WASN'T an attorney came into my office, I was legally prohibited, under penalty of criminal law, from repeating those exact same words to them.

This often lead to the farce of me sending the person to the office of the volunteer attorney (when one was around-usually a freshly minted lawyer trolling for cases by doing a stint at the free advice desk) and then having that attorney call back to my office so I could tell them exactly what to say to the person I just sent there.
 
2013-08-01 01:48:49 PM
The people responsible for sacking the woman who has just been sacked should be sacked.
 
2013-08-01 01:49:33 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


Yeah, that is stupid.

Changing the Rx would be like changing the sentence.
She is a public servant.  The records were public record. Someone should never be punished for doing a little extra in their job to help out.
 
2013-08-01 01:50:04 PM
I think cops and prosecutors forget their real purpose...which is to find the truth...NOT to put people in prison.  Putting the right people in prison as a result of the truth is the goal.
 
2013-08-01 01:52:10 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  both the prosecutor and attorney"had a problem" with her intervention in the case

Yes, people usually have a problem with their incompetence being exposed.


How were they incompetent? DA presented the case based on the victim identifying the suspect by picture and voice. Jury convicted him. Yes we know now he was innocent (of that particular crime) but at the time DNA testing was not available, victim id'ed the suspect and the jury weighed the evidence and convicted him. It seems the incompetence was with his own attorney who said he would present evidence that the accused was with family members at the time of the crime. However, he never presented anything at the trial.

This suspect was easy to locate. He was already in jail for 2 robberies and another rape charge.

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/pages/casedetail.aspx?c as eid=4201
 
2013-08-01 01:55:11 PM

Super_pope: netweavr: It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

No it isn't.  Its analogous to a knowing someone needs information that they're legally entitled to see, and giving them a copy of that information because you know they don't have the knowledge to help themselves or the money to hire someone to do it.

She saw someone struggling against a system that was WRONG but ultimately convinced it should fark him anyway because he didn't have the education or money to fight back "properly."  It isn't like the freaking facts of his case changed, he just copied a motion filed by a lawyer this time and it immediately worked and got him out of jail.  Now because his exoneration pissed off whoever decided, "fark that guy, I put SOMEONE in jail for the crime.  it may not necessarily be the correct person, but I nailed his ass so he's staying in prison," this woman gets fired?  farking ridiculous.


One of the many, many reasons I'm trying to get the flying fark out of this crazy country.
 
2013-08-01 01:56:43 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: released from prison three decades after a wrongful rape conviction


I would be the bitterest bastard who ever bittered. 30 years, down the tubes.

And they should have been the good years: the guy was in prison from age 19 to age 49.


yup, coming out he has no college education, no wife, he's an ex-con (even if proven innocent, apparently the label is hard to shake), he lost the best years of his life and has few good avenues for good employment after.  Not to mention that even in jail, rapists are treated unkindly by other inmates, so he might have had a lot of abuse while he was in.

I would be willing to go back in jail to get revenge when you put it that way.  Good think nobody has wrongfully convicted me of anything.
 
2013-08-01 01:58:38 PM
If our legal system cared about justice, the original judge who denied the DNA motion would have allowed it based upon the intent and spirit of the motion.  Instead, we have a judicial system that only works if you know the proper incantations, which are normally only revealed to the special few who are accepted into their secret socieity (the Bar Association).  They protect their turf against the great unwashed masses and punish anyone who reveals their dirty secrets.
 
2013-08-01 01:58:53 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: Dare thee not to contravene the judgement and will of your "betters".

Day by day our civilization is becoming this:

[l3.yimg.com image 310x465]


So there is hope... wink wink
 
2013-08-01 02:00:13 PM

jshine: The people responsible for sacking the woman who has just been sacked should be sacked.


And then kicked in the sack.
 
2013-08-01 02:03:16 PM

slayer199: I think cops and prosecutors forget their real purpose...which is to find the truth...NOT to put people in prison.  Putting the right people in prison as a result of the truth is the goal.


I'm wondering how nitpicky they got with the other motions filed.  Were they really bad, or did they chuckle and go "haha, he didn't dot that "i", let's reject his motion and see what happens!!!".  At some point, somebody files a motion asking for DNA evidence that they think clears them (because if they were guilty, they wouldn't be asking for DNA evidence that would rubber stamp their guilt), you get the guy a pro-bono lawyer and help him out.

Firing the clerk is beyond evil.  I think they were just looking for a reason to not pay retirement benefits, whatever she had.   Regardless, it is an example in this country how suit-wearing people in power seem content with ruining the lives of ordinary Americans without batting an eye.  So incredibly sad.
 
2013-08-01 02:04:05 PM

rga184: slayer199: I think cops and prosecutors forget their real purpose...which is to find the truth...NOT to put people in prison.  Putting the right people in prison as a result of the truth is the goal.

I'm wondering how nitpicky they got with the other motions filed.  Were they really bad, or did they chuckle and go "haha, he didn't dot that "i", let's reject his motion and see what happens!!!".  At some point, somebody files a motion asking for DNA evidence that they think clears them (because if they were guilty, they wouldn't be asking for DNA evidence that would rubber stamp their guilt), you get the guy a pro-bono lawyer and help him out.

Firing the clerk is beyond evil.  I think they were just looking for a reason to not pay retirement benefits, whatever she had.   Regardless, it is an example in this country how suit-wearing people in power seem content with ruining the lives of ordinary Americans without batting an eye.  So incredibly sad.


She kept her full pension...
 
2013-08-01 02:06:39 PM

Magorn: netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

I completely disagree, and I walked this particular line 100 times myself before I was a lawyer.  The clerk was asked for a public record, she was pro-active in assisting a member of the public in locating that record.  She did not tell her what to file or what to say in her own motion.  She was providing technical procedural advice not legal advice under the meaning of the law.


Did you read a different article than the rest of us?
Nelson maintained his innocence in the case since that conviction, and in August of 2009 filed a motion with the court seeking DNA testing that had not been available at the time of his trial 25 years prior, reports the AP. That motion was denied, evidently due to Nelson's lack of knowledge of the law to make a proper case.
Two years after that petition Nelson filed another motion seeking DNA testing, but was again denied. Following that second attempt, Snyder gave Nelson's sister, Sea Dunnell, a copy of a successful motion filed for a different case which had also requested that DNA evidence be tested.


And farther on:
"The document you chose was, in effect, your recommendation for a Motion for DNA testing that would likely be successful in this Division," Judge Byrn wrote. "But it was clearly improper and a violation of Canon Seven ... which warns against the risk of offering an opinion or suggested course of action."

It looks like she wasn't simply "asked for a public record", but selected a specific motion and said "file this with the details changed".
 
2013-08-01 02:07:07 PM
This clerk was walking a fine line between dispensing legal advice and legal information. What happens next time some paper shuffler decides he/she knows best and provides "guidance" to an inmate, it doesn't work, then the inmate cries foul due to being given bad legal advice from an agent of the court?

It is awesome that the convict was able to finally be found innocent but what the clerk did kind of opens a can of worms.
 
2013-08-01 02:08:32 PM

Reverend J: Englebert Slaptyback: released from prison three decades after a wrongful rape conviction


I would be the bitterest bastard who ever bittered. 30 years, down the tubes.

And they should have been the good years: the guy was in prison from age 19 to age 49.

Hopefully he get's compensation for the time lost, hopefully he'll get enough to retire to a beach-front home somewhere

/Nah, who am I kidding? Kansas will fight tooth-and-nail to not pay him a cent for their blundering


Why should they? 30 years free food and board, I'd call that a good deal.
 
2013-08-01 02:08:55 PM

Theaetetus: Magorn: netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

I completely disagree, and I walked this particular line 100 times myself before I was a lawyer.  The clerk was asked for a public record, she was pro-active in assisting a member of the public in locating that record.  She did not tell her what to file or what to say in her own motion.  She was providing technical procedural advice not legal advice under the meaning of the law.

Did you read a different article than the rest of us?
Nelson maintained his innocence in the case since that conviction, and in August of 2009 filed a motion with the court seeking DNA testing that had not been available at the time of his trial 25 years prior, reports the AP. That motion was denied, evidently due to Nelson's lack of knowledge of the law to make a proper case.
Two years after that petition Nelson filed another motion seeking DNA testing, but was again denied. Following that second attempt, Snyder gave Nelson's sister, Sea Dunnell, a copy of a successful motion filed for a different case which had also requested that DNA evidence be tested.

And farther on:
"The document you chose was, in effect, your recommendation for a Motion for DNA testing that would likely be successful in this Division," Judge Byrn wrote. "But it was clearly improper and a violation of Canon Seven ... which warns against the risk of offering an opinion or suggested course of action."

It looks like she wasn't simply "asked for a public record", but selected a specific motion and said "file this with the details changed".


It's pointless, they don't even realize she was only fired in name and kept her full pension/benefits.
 
2013-08-01 02:10:58 PM
From another article on this:
Byrn fired her June 27, telling her she had violated several court rules by providing assistance to Nelson and talking about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter.

The judge's dismissal letter cites numerous recorded phone conversations between Dunnell and Nelson in which they discussed Snyder's efforts, including the document she provided that Nelson used in his successful DNA motion.


That sounds like a lot more than your giving someone a standard form, Magorn.
 
2013-08-01 02:12:01 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  both the prosecutor and attorney"had a problem" with her intervention in the case

Yes, people usually have a problem with their incompetence being exposed.


HempHead: netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

It nothing like that.

It's more like a bartender seeing someone choke to death on a meatball sand which and performing the Hymlick maneuver.

This was simply a case of Lawyers defending their turf.


Thsoe bolded parts say it best.
 
2013-08-01 02:12:46 PM

Reverend J: Kansas


Missouri
 
2013-08-01 02:14:18 PM

netweavr


She kept her full pension...


Where did you see that? TFA just said she was "fired about nine months prior to her retirement after 34 years as a court employee".

I hope she does keep her pension, but whether she will is not clear.
 
2013-08-01 02:15:56 PM
Russia Today: All the news that glorious comrade Putin has deemed fit to print.
 
2013-08-01 02:16:29 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: netweavr

She kept her full pension...


Where did you see that? TFA just said she was "fired about nine months prior to her retirement after 34 years as a court employee".

I hope she does keep her pension, but whether she will is not clear.


It's in nearly every other article covering this case. They also go into more depth regarding how she went out of her way to seek out the innocent man's sister and guide his petition.
 
2013-08-01 02:20:15 PM

ImRonBurgundy: Reverend J: Kansas

Missouri


My bad, they all look the same when I fly over

/I keed
 
2013-08-01 02:20:27 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: netweavr

She kept her full pension...


Where did you see that? TFA just said she was "fired about nine months prior to her retirement after 34 years as a court employee".

I hope she does keep her pension, but whether she will is not clear.


Five days after Nelson was released, Court Administrator Jeffrey Eisenbeis took Snyder into Byrn's office near closing time and told her the prosecutor and defense attorney "had a problem" with her involvement in the case. She was suspended without pay, ordered to stay out of the courthouse unless she had permission to be there and scheduled to meet with a human resources investigator June 20.

"At first I didn't know if my pension was going to be intact, and all I could do was curl up in a fetal position and cry," said Snyder, who had been planning to retire in March. She later found out her pension would be just fine
. - better article
 
2013-08-01 02:21:26 PM
30 years? The guy should be allowed to rape whoever he wants now.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-01 02:22:58 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: netweavr

She kept her full pension...


Where did you see that? TFA just said she was "fired about nine months prior to her retirement after 34 years as a court employee".

I hope she does keep her pension, but whether she will is not clear.


I don't have references, but I know she got her pension because this story is a couple of days old and has been discussed ad nauseum on other outlets.  Fark is a couple of days old on everything right now.
 
2013-08-01 02:23:55 PM
To paraphrase what appears to have happened:
She provided legal council in an explicit violation of the law/rules of the Court. In light of her service and due to the reality that she was right, they forced her to retire early. Due to the circumstances, they still called it "termination with cause."

I don't see why people are upset about this.
 
2013-08-01 02:27:28 PM

Theaetetus: From another article on this:
Byrn fired her June 27, telling her she had violated several court rules by providing assistance to Nelson and talking about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter.

The judge's dismissal letter cites numerous recorded phone conversations between Dunnell and Nelson in which they discussed Snyder's efforts, including the document she provided that Nelson used in his successful DNA motion.

That sounds like a lot more than your giving someone a standard form, Magorn.



Admittedly so, but in both cases the problem was the same: someone being denied substantial justice because they were unable to put the prayer for relief in a proper format.   We supposedly did away with that shiat way back in the bad old days of English common law when we added Courts of Equity to the Chancery Courts, and motions were no longer denied because they were bound in the wrong color of ribbon (Where the term "red tape" actually comes from).  To my mind, sustantive legal advice would have been telling her "you should file a motion to have the DNA tested"  or  "don;t take the plea bargain that was offered", not "here's an example of a motion that does what improrerly formatted motion is trying to do" . One really is offering legal advice she is unqualfied to give that may cause harm to the recipient.   the Second is merely turf-guarding by lawyers who were shown up.   This was post-conviction relief so no statutory deadline applied, so the worst that would have happened to the recipient of the advice was that their motion would be denied, again.
 
2013-08-01 02:28:40 PM

Theaetetus


"At first I didn't know if my pension was going to be intact, and all I could do was curl up in a fetal position and cry," said Snyder, who had been planning to retire in March. She later found out her pension would be just fine.


I haven't been following this case, primarily because the first I'd heard of it was just now in TFA.

While you were posting I found a couple other articles; one mentioned the pension, the other did not.
 
2013-08-01 02:30:01 PM

lohphat: FTFA: Buffey's case is similar to Nelson's in that the obstacles to obtain potentially exonerating DNA evidence are high. In addition to needing the requisite legal knowledge to file a proper motion with the court, a 2009 US Supreme Court ruling stated that a defendant willing to pay for a DNA test at his own expense was not entitled to do so. Chief Justice John G. Roberts said that such an allowance risked "unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice."

So in short, justice and truth be damned if you can't invoke the proper magical incantations to appease the brokers of life and death.

Pure perversion.


As attorney and someone who has worked on appellate work for folks on death row, I award you a THIS that can be seen from space
 
2013-08-01 02:45:54 PM

Magorn: netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

I completely disagree, and I walked this particular line 100 times myself before I was a lawyer.  The clerk was asked for a public record, she was pro-active in assisting a member of the public in locating that record.  She did not tell her what to file or what to say in her own motion.  She was providing technical procedural advice not legal advice under the meaning of the law.

I ran the Pro-se information Project for a Family court just outside of DC and I was often faced with the exact same dilemma.   I was a only a paralegal (with a judge's signature stamp in my desk) so I could technically only tell people HOW to file things  not WHAT to file, so I danced this dance all  the time.  FOr example I got a series of simple standard form approved for a lot of common domestic filings and motions approved; but I was only allowed to give them out if they checked off a form requesting the documents, not if they verbally asked for them.  A chief motivator for going to law school was the fact that I would often have an attorney or two in my office and I would walk them through exactly what they needed to file and what the motion needed to say to get some sort of action from the court, but if five minutes later, a person who WASN'T an attorney came into my office, I was legally prohibited, under penalty of criminal law, from repeating those exact same words to them.

This often lead to the farce of me sending the person to the office of the volunteer attorney (when one was around-usually a freshly minted lawyer trolling for cases by doing a stint at the free advice desk) and then having that attorney call back to my office so I could tell them exactly what to say to the person I just sent there ...


I am missing the part where the clerk was asked for the motion. I read it as the clerk took it upon herself to locate and distribute the material, unsolicited. A fine line to be sure. In hindsight, the winning move would be to "suggest" that a properly constructed motion had been filed in the past and perhaps a similarly filed motion would have standing.
 
2013-08-01 02:48:08 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


The inmate didn't have an attorney to disbar.  He did nothing wrong at trial because the test didn't exist back then.

Cheron: Once convicted you have no right to evidence that can clearly show your innocence. Link


You misunderstand.  They bounced the case because he didn't even try to use the system that already existed.

OgreMagi: If our legal system cared about justice, the original judge who denied the DNA motion would have allowed it based upon the intent and spirit of the motion.  Instead, we have a judicial system that only works if you know the proper incantations, which are normally only revealed to the special few who are accepted into their secret socieity (the Bar Association).  They protect their turf against the great unwashed masses and punish anyone who reveals their dirty secrets.


Agreed.  This is the real issue.

shirtsbyeric: 30 years? The guy should be allowed to rape whoever he wants now.


No.  I wouldn't mind him being allowed to rape anyone whose misconduct put him there, though.
 
2013-08-01 02:49:29 PM

Magorn: Theaetetus: From another article on this:
Byrn fired her June 27, telling her she had violated several court rules by providing assistance to Nelson and talking about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter.

The judge's dismissal letter cites numerous recorded phone conversations between Dunnell and Nelson in which they discussed Snyder's efforts, including the document she provided that Nelson used in his successful DNA motion.

That sounds like a lot more than your giving someone a standard form, Magorn.


Admittedly so, but in both cases the problem was the same: someone being denied substantial justice because they were unable to put the prayer for relief in a proper format.


That may or may not be true, based on the limited facts in this article. If you're correct, then we should be able to find no substantive differences between the successful motion and the unsuccessful one, just formatting differences. If there are substantive differences, then it sounds more like "don't make that argument, make this one" advice.
But, I can't access those motions. Also can't find a copy of the dismissal letter anywhere.
 
2013-08-01 02:49:57 PM

Loren: netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

The inmate didn't have an attorney to disbar. He did nothing wrong at trial because the test didn't exist back then.


Yeah, I got that part wrong. There was no original lawyer screwing up the petitions.
 
2013-08-01 02:50:27 PM

netweavr: To paraphrase what appears to have happened:
She provided legal council in an explicit violation of the law/rules of the Court. In light of her service and due to the reality that she was right, they forced her to retire early. Due to the circumstances, they still called it "termination with cause."

I don't see why people are upset about this.


She provided them with a public document. Clerks do that.
 
2013-08-01 02:51:28 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


It sounds more like the check-in nurse giving you the correct form that you didn't know you needed to fill out.
 
2013-08-01 02:51:28 PM

lohphat: netweavr: To paraphrase what appears to have happened:
She provided legal council in an explicit violation of the law/rules of the Court. In light of her service and due to the reality that she was right, they forced her to retire early. Due to the circumstances, they still called it "termination with cause."

I don't see why people are upset about this.

She provided them with a public document. Clerks do that.


She sought out the sister with the purpose of discussing Court business. She gave them the document and instructed them on how to modify it for their needs.
 
2013-08-01 02:53:15 PM

flondrix: netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

It sounds more like the check-in nurse giving you the correct form that you didn't know you needed to fill out.


If you want to play the metaphor game, then it's the check-in nurse calling your sister and saying you needed to fill out a different form to get that Rx you wanted. Then providing a copy of the form and telling her how to modify it so the doctor will change the Rx.
 
2013-08-01 02:55:53 PM
I haven't spent any time, but by chance was the arrested guy... ohhhhh black?
 
2013-08-01 02:57:07 PM

KellyX: I haven't spent any time, but by chance was the arrested guy... ohhhhh black?


th00.deviantart.net
 
2013-08-01 02:59:38 PM
Why am I not shocked...

Frankly after his life ruined for 30 years, he should be given a house in a good area, pay it off, never have to pay taxes on it, and giving X amount (I dunno, $3000 a month tax free) for the rest of his farking life, subject to increase based on inflation...
 
2013-08-01 03:00:14 PM

netweavr: lohphat: netweavr: To paraphrase what appears to have happened:
She provided legal council in an explicit violation of the law/rules of the Court. In light of her service and due to the reality that she was right, they forced her to retire early. Due to the circumstances, they still called it "termination with cause."

I don't see why people are upset about this.

She provided them with a public document. Clerks do that.

She sought out the sister with the purpose of discussing Court business. She gave them the document and instructed them on how to modify it for their needs.


Giving out a public document and unpaid procedural advice on how to fill out a form is worthy of firing? Then why ins't every clerk at the small claims desk not guilty of the same thing?
 
2013-08-01 03:15:05 PM
Not enough of this sort of thing gets the press and attention it needs.
 
2013-08-01 03:17:58 PM
If I was the clerk I wouldn't care about being fired, I'd sleep soundly for the rest of my days. If I was the man falsely imprisoned I'd strongly consider going Count of Monte Cristo on the prosecutor and anyone else involved.
 
2013-08-01 03:27:03 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: If I was the clerk I wouldn't care about being fired, I'd sleep soundly for the rest of my days. If I was the man falsely imprisoned I'd strongly consider going Count of Monte Cristo on the prosecutor and anyone else involved.


He should not have to. The System should prosecute to the fullest extent.
But, then, as usual, the hypocrisy of those that would claim to enforce "The Law, the Whole Law and Nothing but the Law", protect the self same guilty.
 
2013-08-01 03:31:33 PM

Carousel Beast: netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

Why?


Because things are run by incompetent psychopaths and a slave prole stepping out of line really pisses them off.

Its far preferable for an innocent person to die than an underling showing up their superiors.
 
2013-08-01 03:46:24 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


Oh absolutely ! everybody knows that rules and regulations are sacrosanct and must at all times be placed above peoples' lives.
 
2013-08-01 03:47:59 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


It was nothing at all like that. It was more like the local librarian saying "try this book instead, it doesn't suck as much as yours". OTOH, that's pretty much what a librarian is supposed to do so that's a bad analogy.

I think the firing was still basically the right thing to do. The clerk is not paid to watch out of the interests of prisoners. Plus it was stupid of her to get caught. She could have made the document available to the guy anonymously or on the DL.
 
2013-08-01 03:49:51 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: If I was the clerk I wouldn't care about being fired, I'd sleep soundly for the rest of my days. If I was the man falsely imprisoned I'd strongly consider going Count of Monte Cristo on the prosecutor and anyone else involved.


The Original arresting officer and prosecutor?  No. So long as it was a sincere prosecution without malefeasance they were just doing thier jobs.  The Prosecutor who tried to get my DNA motions blocked?  Yeah, bloody violent revenge on that asshat...
 
2013-08-01 03:53:49 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


It's not even close to the same thing as that, and since I experienced an ER nurse changing my prescription - okay, he convinced the doctor to try something else (close enough) - I'm really getting a kick out of your reply.

the nurse thought I was a junky drug seeker (I wasn't.)

This court clerk just showed this person a document and suggested they take a look at it.,
 
2013-08-01 04:21:14 PM
The point of any governmental agency is results.

This is the justice system.

The result is supposed to be justice.

When somebody is fired for producing the stated results the system is in place to effect, the system is a lie.
 
2013-08-01 04:32:49 PM
Smelly Pirate Hooker

FTFA: both the prosecutor and attorney"had a problem" with her intervention in the case

Yes, people usually have a problem with their incompetence being exposed.


Exactly correct, especially for those with future political aspirations. Judges and DA's tend to get all upset when proven wrong and they have the ability and power to start making it difficult for their mistakes to be corrected.

Years ago, an inmate writing a legal brief contesting his conviction would have it accepted because it was understood that he was not a lawyer, had limited access to legal expertise and even supplies. He could write the papers in pencil in a rambling way, but so long as the desire and purpose was understood, the courts would act.

Now, after major incompetence has been shown due to the advances in technology and lawsuits ranging in the millions have been levied against states which jailed innocent people, the legal system has started making it hard for an uneducated convict to get potentially acquitting evidence examined.

In addition to needing the requisite legal knowledge to file a proper motion with the court, a 2009 US Supreme Court ruling stated that a defendant willing to pay for a DNA test at his own expense was not entitled to do so. Chief Justice John G. Roberts said that such an allowance risked "unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice.

Pretty much denying the defendant any option to prove his innocence, which, IMO, should be stricken from the law books as unconstitutional. It's a blatant move for Judges and DA's to cover their arses only. It has no other purpose.

Even if a lab is not State Certified, a result from it should be considered and then retested at a certified one to confirm the results. No innocent person should be imprisoned for a crime they did not commit.

Ages back, the office of the Public Defender was created in an effort to provide justice for all, especially for those who could not afford the expense of a lawyer. Walking into court without a lawyer would nearly always guarantee a conviction. That was determined to be unconstitutional.
Having to present papers to the court, written in EXACTLY an approved form, is a hurdle placed deliberately in the way of anyone without a lawyer to prove their innocence.

As for the clerk, there are times when standing up for what is right supercedes self-protective rules, especially when information disbursed is considered to be in the public dominion and available to anyone.

His termination was an obvious retribution for embarrassing powerful legal representatives and opening the State up to a lawsuit which could cost them millions.

As various technologies become available to determine the guilt or innocence of a convicted person, there will no doubt be barricades raised to prevent their having access to them.

The State and Judicial system prefers to lock an innocent away in jail for life rather than to admit a mistake was made.

I once heard a DA mention that he had never lost a case and was concerned over that because not all of the cases he tried would have been actually guilty people. The law of probability forbids it. This simply indicated to me that he was basically a better bullshiatter than most, able to manipulate others into believing his way and/or managing to get potentially exonerating evidence suppressed, knowing it would negate his case.

Our legal system needs to be examined and adjusted for the current times. However, the very people with the power to do so have the most to loose, which means it may take decades before changes are implemented.
 
2013-08-01 04:35:28 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


You sir are technically correct.The best kind of correct.
 
2013-08-01 04:52:01 PM
Magorn:
This often lead to the farce of me sending the person to the office of the volunteer attorney (when one was around-usually a freshly minted lawyer trolling for cases by doing a stint at the free advice desk) and then having that attorney call back to my office so I could tell them exactly what to say to the person I just sent there ...

Slick
 
2013-08-01 05:30:25 PM

OgreMagi: If our legal system cared about justice, the original judge who denied the DNA motion would have allowed it based upon the intent and spirit of the motion.  Instead, we have a judicial system that only works if you know the proper incantations, which are normally only revealed to the special few who are accepted into their secret socieity (the Bar Association).  They protect their turf against the great unwashed masses and punish anyone who reveals their dirty secrets.


I can't speak for Missouri law specifically, but generally speaking, a lot of the "procedural roadblocks" that get in the way of criminal appeals are not placed there by lawyers/bar associations to protect the legal profession, but rather by "law and order" politicians seeking to make it more difficult to appeal criminal convictions.
 
2013-08-01 06:01:50 PM

El_Perro: I can't speak for Missouri law specifically, but generally speaking, a lot of the "procedural roadblocks" that get in the way of criminal appeals are not placed there by lawyers/bar associations to protect the legal profession, but rather by "law and order" politicians seeking to make it more difficult to appeal criminal convictions.


I definitely agree.  Politicians get tired of all the lawsuits prisoners bring clogging up the system and costing money--never mind that the system generally gives them no other recourse to right wrongs.
 
2013-08-01 06:15:24 PM

El_Perro: OgreMagi: If our legal system cared about justice, the original judge who denied the DNA motion would have allowed it based upon the intent and spirit of the motion.  Instead, we have a judicial system that only works if you know the proper incantations, which are normally only revealed to the special few who are accepted into their secret socieity (the Bar Association).  They protect their turf against the great unwashed masses and punish anyone who reveals their dirty secrets.

I can't speak for Missouri law specifically, but generally speaking, a lot of the "procedural roadblocks" that get in the way of criminal appeals are not placed there by lawyers/bar associations to protect the legal profession, but rather by "law and order" politicians seeking to make it more difficult to appeal criminal convictions.


Guess what degree 99% of politicians obtained in college.
 
2013-08-01 07:36:53 PM
Ruskies writing baid things 'bout 'Murica; WHARGARBLGARBL!!!!
 
hej
2013-08-01 07:47:06 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


No, this would be like a check-in nurse (whatever that is) seeing your Rx and making a point of telling you what they think is wrong with it and letting you question your doctor on your own.
 
2013-08-01 08:38:06 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


No it isn't the same.  A nurse giving you the wrong prescription could potentially kill you.  Not true here.  This was just giving advice that the guy could take or leave.
 
2013-08-01 08:49:13 PM

netweavr: You people realize she was still given her full pension, right?


That doesn't make everything cool and suggests to me that they knew what they were doing was below board.  Give her the pension in the hopes she would go away quietly and not sue.  Very unsettling to me that officers of the court would care more about their egos than the pursuit of justice.
 
2013-08-01 09:11:45 PM

Pumpernickel bread: Very unsettling to me that officers of the court would care more about their egos than the pursuit of justice.


You've lived a sheltered life.  My mom's second husband was a DA for the city of los angeless.  What I learned was every single "officer of the court" cared only for his own personal prestige and power.  They spent half their time jockeying for position and trying to stick someone else with cases they knew they could not win but had to prosecute (for whatever reason).  Every single one that I met was a complete asshole who would sell out his own mother if he thought he would gain from it.  That included the asshole married to my mom (I was an adult on my own when she married him).
 
2013-08-02 02:08:45 AM
The worst part?  She wasn't even supposed to be there that day.
 
Displayed 112 of 112 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report