When Prosecutors Believe the Unbelievable
slate.com
slate.com
A lot of people immediately think of Mike Nifong when prosecutor misconduct comes up, and while that case was certainly disgusting, I think an even better (worse?) example is the prosecution of Mr. John Thompson by Harry Connick, Sr.
Though it receives far less attention, the facts of the case are no less than offensive. Mr. Thompson was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to die for a crime that he did not commit. [0] The DNA evidence that would have fully exonerated Mr. Thompson of any wrongdoing was deliberately withheld by the prosecutor, Harry Connick, Sr. (yep, the dad), long-time prosecutor in New Orleans.
Mr. Thompson spent fourteen years on death row. Fourteen years of this man's life were stolen from him by Harry Connick, Sr., years that he can never get back. On seven occasions during his time on death row, he was given the date on which he would be put to death for something he did not do. [1]
Can you even imagine? To lay in bed, reflecting back on the events of a day in which you had been given a time and a place to be put to death for something that you did not do? I cannot. Don't bother asking Harry Connick, Sr. about that, though. He doesn't give one single fuck. [2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connick_v._Thompson
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jury-gave-john-thompson-14-mi...
[2] http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/04/former_da_harry_...
The legal system requires minor technical hurdles to be passed to "prove" guilt. Experienced prosecutors know that the facts of a case are irrelevant (as demonstrated here, very starkly). Get enough of your check-boxes filled in and you "win" and you're up for promotion based on all your wins (or election to higher office etc.). That's all a prosecutor is interested in (i.e. their own promotion, building a track record of winning).
Justice, I'm afraid, does not get a look in. Sometimes, by coincidence, it may meet, but that's never by design on the prosecution side.
It really drives home that as far as the justice system is concerned, we all belong in prison.
Edit: I appear to have been overly vague. My point is that you can't reward a prosecutor for producing a "truthful" outcome unless you know the truth to compare with. If you knew the absolute truth then an adversarial trial system would be expensive and redundant.
Well, this article clearly shows how even with evidences, as a man displeasing a woman you are guilty in the system.
Sad, but the morale of this case is simple: don't interact with millennial women.
Sexual assault is the only crime where there is sometimes not even real proof that the crime actually happened. As opposed to a murder or a theft or financial montages. Most of the time all we have is the word of a woman saying it happened. Sexual assault is the only crime where we lower the bar of "beyond reasonable doubt".
I hope that Mr. Weiner sues that state for compensation for his house, savings, emotional injury, and anything else his attorney can pile on.
The real point is that, by and large, most people simply do not care. It is completely irrevelant, or they believe absurd things like a defendant surely did something wrong otherwise the case would not be at trial. Others have mentioned that prosecutors have immunity from civil suits; I would say that could be changed by the legislature explicitly making prosecutors liable. Short of that, prosecutors would need to be stopped by force in order to effect a just system.
“Lawyers actually “think” nothing. Or rather, what they write and what they argue is what they are paid to write and argue. It has no actual connection to what they actually think - they might not even have actually personally considered the issue, and may never do so. However, what they write is in many ways meant to be taken seriously and reacted to, just like troll posts. Therefore, take care not to be trolled by lawyers.”
That would be the made-up story about a gang rape at the University of Virginia? Not sure how that can prove anything about predators. All it proves is that some journalists are incompetent.
""A Rape on Campus" is an article by Sabrina Erdely published in the December 2014 issue of Rolling Stone,[1] which has since been debunked and retracted by the publisher. " [1]
Can anybody help me understand this? Does it really work this way?
This seems like a case of "unchecked power" to me. I am baffled how this prosecutor does not get reprimanded or dismissed given the seemingly obvious evidence that she intentionally did the wrong thing here.
The damage that her choices did to this man's life are shocking and inexcusable, and this kind of behaviour should be terrifying to everyone, law-abiding tax-paying citizens included..
I get that in the end, "the system worked" and his conviction was vacated, but meanwhile this poor man sits in jail, for years? That's horrible.
This is nothing but corruption and pure evil, and unless you stamp it out, another poor fellow like this one (who was only interested in being a good citizen to a potentially vulnerable girl; remember Hannah Graham), will get his life destroyed by similarly evil people.
I have to say though if I was the prosecutor in this case I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
Remember people, "war on women".
All such cases follow this pattern, woman is the alleged victim, man is convicted, 2 years later details made public regarding disregarded evidence, man released.
That's my perception. Just like people can say "she was not promoted because she's a woman" or "he was pulled over because he's black" I can say "she was believed unconditionally because she's a woman".