Sword seized after man mistakes porn for rape
 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/22/por...rss_topstories

I think they should make him fix the door and let him go . . oh and laugh about it.

Who has a sword?

I want a sword. I wish I had one :(

/NOT in a Freudian way

Come on, if it really appears the guy was acting in good faith, he's a responsible citizen, not a criminal.

I agree. Although he should have to fix the door :)

Totally agree. That county is notorious for overcharging crap and then pleading it so they can be "tough on crime" so I'm betting he'll end up pleading down to a disorderly. I think he should take it to trial if they don't dismiss and demand a jury trial.

Ok, in this situation, shouldn't the other owner really be the one who determines if charges are pressed or not? I mean, if he backs down and says, eh, whatever, would there still be charges or can the state press them on its own?

No, the state makes all charging decisions. This causes a lot of problems like in domestic violence cases where the victim will call the DA a few days later and say "Oh, I didn't really want to call the police, it's not a big deal, blah blah..." but at that point the victim has no say. They lose control of the case when they call the police.

Maybe one of the "Society for Creative Anachronism" people? http://www.sca.org/

Not necessarily true. I once caught a co-worker stealing from our family business and called police. They refused to press charges. They said "I" had to press the charges, meaning I could have said no. Perhaps it depends on the nature of the crime, and/or the jurisdiction.

In this case, the guy with the sword didn't have a phone, so I would assume the other guy called in the complaint and pressed charges.

Who has swords? I do! Two of them - just like on our coat of arms! :)

If they said you had to press the charges then you probably didn't meet the standard for criminal theft and they may have meant you had to go civil.

I am very very familiar with this area (I would say more but, you know, crazy people on the interwebs) and I would be absolutely shocked if the DA was willing to drop it.

No, I had to actually say out loud, in front of everybody, "I want him arrested", whereupon the cops put him in handcuffs and took him away in a police car. It wasn't all that civil.

Another time, we had a nighttime break-in. Files rifled just for looks - an inside job. When we told the detective the name of the employee we suspected, he rolled his eyes and said, "Her??? She a goddamn thief!"

So that was the end of that. They never so much as called her up and asked her if she had done it.

The only thing that shocks me about DAs is how often they'll railroad people they know are innocent, just to close a case.

Other than Nifong, do you really think this happens much?

They "know" the person's innocent? How? Wouldn't they also know that the defense lawyer could prove it just the same way they "knew' it?

How often does it have to happen to be considered "much"? Are you saying it has never happened, or is there a certain threshold above which we should be shocked?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

How would the defense lawyer know it if the DA learns something from the cops and fails to disclose it? Mind-reading?

Other than the movies, I just don't know of it happening. You both must have more experience with corrupt prosecutors than I do. Seeing as my personal experience with prosecutors in practically none, tell me about some of these cases.

I also don't understand why they'd do it. They aren't the ones who look bad with open cases.

I can see on some level why they might seek advantages in trying to convict someone they believed to be guilty, but why with someone they knew to be innocent?

http://www.truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm

I don't vouch for the site but i have heard of some these cases independantly:

"Illinois: In 1994, Chicago cops used a "reverse lineup" (in which a suspect is asked to identify his victims), along with threats and physical abuse, to coerce 17-year-old Lafonso Rollins into confessing to the rape of an elderly woman. He was convicted and sentenced to 75 years prison, but he was freed in 2004 when DNA proved his innocence. He sued. Discovery in his civil suit disclosed that the police crime lab had excluded him based on blood type before Rollins was ever tried. Oops. The great teamwork cost the city $9 million. Cops & Crime Lab, Working Together"


"Ohio: Derrick Jamison has been released from Ohio's Death Row. His 1985 murder conviction was overturned by two federal courts, which ruled he was denied a fair trial by prosecutors who withheld evidence that might have cleared him. 119th Innocent Person Released from Death Row"

Because all they care about is a conviction. I work as a prosecutor in juvenile court right now and I'm not going to tell you about my cases because it's illegal, but I've seen it done.

Here's one example, from one of my boyfriend's clients: Dude is charged with criminal damage to property because there was a building with the windows smashed. Dude was walking down the street near the building and had some cuts on his hand because he works on an assembly line and a piece of equipment was faulty. Dude's boss and dude's coworkers are all willing to testify he was at work. Rather than drop the charges, the DA railroads him into pleading down to disorderly conduct.

If you are truly interested, you might search the Internet.

Here's a brief synopsis from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...scid=6&did=141

"Prosecutorial or police misconduct played a part in 63% of the convictions that DNA testing by the Innocence Project later overturned. Since 1963, at least 381 murder convictions in the United States have been reversed because of misconduct by police or prosecutors."

Here is one of the worst cases of prosecutorial misconduct ever, straight from my Wrongful Convictions class...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/case/cases/

Read the one on Roy Criner and read some of the statements from the DA in that case.

Here's another doozy...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../robinson.html

You'd like to think that DNA not matching would at the very least kick it back for another trial if not immediately lead to a pardon, but in several of those cases the DNA wasn't even tested until after the guys were in jail. So some of them lack the kind of knowledge of innocence that I questioned the first time.

Others do show show intentional misconduct which I still find baffling. It so clearly wrong and its hard to see what they gain.

GeekyPenguin, I know that you have to do your job and you don't want to commit career suicide, but if you know of misconduct, you should probably report it whoever represents the appropriate authority.

LOL, usually it IS the appropriate authority. :rolleyes:

Right, but you've got the state bar and whatever the equivalent group is to the one reviewing Nifong's actions in NC.

Prosecutors aren't exempt from following the law.

Wouldn't there be federal recourse if it's a violation of civil rights?

ETA: I'm not sure why I couldn't think of attorney general.

Honestly, this really isn't worth getting into with you. I like that civilians think the justice system is fair.

Well, if everybody on the inside is just working it out for us. . .

Seriously, if you know of misconduct are you free just not to report it?

Geekypenguin . . what is the State Bar's actual authority over prosecutors?

Which of these "higher higher authorities" don't have the continued appearance of shit like "97% conviction rate in our ________!" as their best interests?

I'm not sure you really understand the full reason behind why prosecutorial misconduct occurs - you've got a very "sunshine and roses" thought process, which leads me to believe you've never really spent much time dealing with anything related to criminal prosecution . . . oh, and here's a related note: once these guys are freed, it's cash-in time for various plaintiffs' attorneys nationwide (many of whom specialize in this kind of work).

No one's hands are clean here - and those vacated sentences? Not always because of unilateral innocence.

Varies from state to state, and generally pretty low - of course they are subject to discipline like anyone else, but I don't think I've seen it happen in either of the states that I follow disciplinary proceedings in. I'm sure that valkryie or MysticCat are a lot more qualified to speak on it since they are real lawyers and not student practice rule lawyers like me. ;)

NO. There is a difference between what the public views as misconduct and what the actual rules of professional responsibility require. Zealous advocacy...

Yes - and at least here in CT, things are getting more stringent with the tougher federal guidelines (Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.). I don't know if it comes out more heavily on the defense bar, but the rules of professional responsibility are pretty strict.

Like you say though, prosecutorial misconduct does occur though, and it's kind of eye-opening when you see some of the extent of it.

Don't forget about the extremely liberal interpretation of prosecutorial immunity by some courts (which are certainly related, but raise entirely new issues).

You're right. It varies from state to state.

As a general rule, however, in those states where the district attorney (or state's attorney, or whatever he or she may be called) is elected rather than appointed, then there is no "higher authority" that can tell the DA how to do his or her job -- not the governor, not the AG, not anybody. As an elected official, the DA is answerable to the eletorate. He can be voted out of office, and state law likely provides one or more methods of removal from office (such as impeachment), but as far as prosecutorial decision-making goes, the buck stops with the DA.

The role of the bar, again generally speaking, will be to determine if rules of ethics/professional responsibility have been violated, and if so, what the punishment (if any) should be. The bar cannot discipline a DA for bad-decision making, nor can it second guess the DA on questions like whether charges should be brought or not. But if the DA's conduct violates the rules of professional responsibility -- whether the rules are applicable to all attorneys or, as is sometimes the case, rules outlining hightened responsibilities for prosecutors -- then the bar can impose discipline, including disbarment. Should a DA be disbarred, then presumably he or she would have to resign, since being a licensed attorney is a prerequisite to being DA.

I so agree. I remember watching some True Crime Stories on A&E and people could hear a woman being murdered and no one did jack about it and then the murderer killed 2 or 3 more people being being caught. They could have nipped it in the bud right then and there if they'd done something.

I am LMAO about the fact that he had a sword but no phone. :D :eek: