Sword seized after man mistakes porn for rape

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

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?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

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

[UGAalum94]

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.

[UGAalum94]

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?

[James]

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"

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

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?

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.

[JonoBN41]

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."

[GeekyPenguin]

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

[UGAalum94]

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.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

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.