Another Inmate freed on new evidence (after 25 years)

[TSD]

EDIT: He wasnt on death row.





http://news.yahoo.co...-210522279.html





His attorneys say prosecutors and investigators kept evidence from the defense that would have helped acquit him at trial.





and this is our justice system, convict someone, who cares if they are guilty.

 

[MassHavoc]

From reading this though, it doesn't seem like a problem with the system, but with a couple of people within it.

 

[BigPete]

Hey, nobody said the Italians were the only ones doing this.



Our justice system is fucked up too. It is all about the best argument, not what the evidence says. While Casey Anthony probably is guilty, they couldn't prove it, so they lost. That is a win for the system. The evidence wasn't there, so it wasn't proven.



I think they need to put a moretorium on any death penalty that was decided more than 10 years ago, so the cases and trials can be reviewed. It isn't going to happen though.

 

[roshinaya]

From reading this though, it doesn't seem like a problem with the system, but with a couple of people within it.

Shouldn't a working system make sure that people like that don't get in? And if they do, make sure they get disbarred.

 

[TSD]

Shouldn't a working system make sure that people like that don't get in? And if they do, make sure they get disbarred.

Thats the thing, for all parties involved, it shouldnt be about getting people off guilty or not and likewise convicting guilty or not.



It you try to twist facts, withhold evidence to get your way, that is essentially twisting and withholding the TRUTH and the truth of guilt or innocence is what it should be all about, not your conviction or acquittal rate.



The problem is, there is too much personal gain for the parties involved and yes, someone found deliberately withholding evidence etc. should be held accountable.





this is the most telling part of the article:



Bradley did not try the original case against Morton. But the Innocence Project has accused him of suppressing evidence that would have helped clear Morton sooner. That evidence — including a transcript of a police interview indicating that Morton's son said the attacker was not his father and that his wife's credit card and personal checks were used after she was killed — was ultimately obtained through a Texas Public Information Act request.

 

[sth]

I think if a prosecutor does withhold evidence in a capital murder case, and the person ends up on death row the prosecutor should be charged with attempted murder. And if the person is executed they should be charged with murder. Governor Perry should have been charged with murder for ignoring clear evidence that the father accused of arson was innocent before he was executed.

 

[BigPete]

I think if a prosecutor does withhold evidence in a capital murder case, and the person ends up on death row the prosecutor should be charged with attempted murder. And if the person is executed they should be charged with murder. Governor Perry should have been charged with murder for ignoring clear evidence that the father accused of arson was innocent before he was executed.

That would be awesome. Unfortunately, this guy might only lose his position and be disbarred, but the convict lost his freedom and the tax payers of Texas are going to lose $2 million of public funds...all because the prosecutor is a fucking scumbag.



Anyone who hasn't seen "Law Abiding Citizen" with Jamie Fox and Gerard Butler should rent it tonight.

 

[Tater]

Hey, nobody said the Italians were the only ones doing this.



Our justice system is fucked up too. It is all about the best argument, not what the evidence says. While Casey Anthony probably is guilty, they couldn't prove it, so they lost. That is a win for the system. The evidence wasn't there, so it wasn't proven.



I think they need to put a moretorium on any death penalty that was decided more than 10 years ago, so the cases and trials can be reviewed. It isn't going to happen though.

Aren't they already reviewed during the many years of appeals?

 

[BigPete]

Aren't they already reviewed during the many years of appeals?

Usually by the same corrupt people that agreed to the convictions in the first place.



Also, there has to be compelling new evidence or an exposed technicality that would overturn a conviction. You can't go back to court and say, the prosecutor lied and here's how. It has to be, "here is some evidence that we didn't know about last time...by the way your honor, this lying prosecutor hid it from us." That is one major difference from the Italian system. Knox and Sollecito's lawyers argued that the evidence used the first time was fake and bullshit. That would never happen here.



It's a minor difference, but still very important to understanding the appeals process.