wrongfully imprisoned, sentenced to death, because prosecutors hid evidence

[BustedS13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10thompson.html?_r=3

and nobody who fucked up this guy's life will be tried for anything.

[sidewaysil80]

honestly i don't even feel bad. this whole thing would have been avoided if he didn't buy a handgun (that was used in a crime) illegally. and i don't understand how they "hid" evidence, they just didn't present it...put yourself in the prosecutors shoes. you have a guy who probably is a low class member of society and i'm willing to bet he has some priors considering he had no problem buying a gun illegally (i wonder what he was going to use it for?), but regardless, said guy gets caught with gun and property from a crime, then you have THE VICTIM TESTIFYING it was him...why would you as a prosecutor knowingly submit evidence that would clear him. that defeats the whole purpose of the american judicial system if prosecutors and defense attorneys were contradicting themselves and presenting evidence that HURT their case...not helped it.

[nieko]

So much bullshit...

And they convicted him on the victim's identification alone?

[raz0rbladez909]

honestly i don't even feel bad. this whole thing would have been avoided if he didn't buy a handgun (that was used in a crime) illegally. and i don't understand how they "hid" evidence, they just didn't present it...put yourself in the prosecutors shoes. you have a guy who probably is a low class member of society and i'm willing to bet he has some priors considering he had no problem buying a gun illegally (i wonder what he was going to use it for?), but regardless, said guy gets caught with gun and property from a crime, then you have a third party testifiying it was him...why would you as a prosecutor knowingly submit evidence that would clear him. that defeats the whole purpose of the american judicial system if prosecutors and defense attorneys were contradicting themselves and presenting evidence that HURT their case...no helped it.

This is exactly what I thought, if you were such a stand up citizen, why would you ILLEGALLY purchase a gun?

[sidewaysil80]

This is exactly what I thought, if you were such a stand up citizen, why would you ILLEGALLY purchase a gun?

to clarify on my rant, granted ok their is hard evidence clearing him of the robbery...but what about the murder. he had the gun and the property and an accomplice that flipped on him...yeah ok, he didn't do it :cj:

So much bullshit...

And they convicted him on the victim's identification alone?

thats kind of how it works. they nab a suspect that matches your initial description and is somehow tied to the crime (i.e. was in the area of the crime, had property linked to it, was in a vechicle described etc.)...get a bunch of current prisoners that fit the same description, and call you in to pick out which one it was.

and to put in perspective, say your girl was raped and she gave a description of the guy. you find the guy in the area where it happened and show her a pic of him and a bunch of dudes that look like him. she picks out him...would that be good enough for you? honestly?

busteds13, why do you only post the negative police/prosecution stories? how about the positives? i'm not trying to start an e-battle or invite immature comments i'm actually really curious.

[DMACHINE188]

The prosecution must share all of their evidence with the defense attorneys. If they shared this evidence then the defense would have been able to share it with the jury and therefore he would have won the case.

[BustedS13]

honestly i don't even feel bad. this whole thing would have been avoided if he didn't buy a handgun (that was used in a crime) illegally.

This is exactly what I thought, if you were such a stand up citizen, why would you ILLEGALLY purchase a gun?

what was illegal about his gun purchase?

[Nismo95]

what was illegal about his gun purchase?

samething i was thinking its crazy how the law is tough :bash:

[sidewaysil80]

what was illegal about his gun purchase?

ASSUMING, his story his true and he didn't commit the crimes himself, he didn't have it's registration transferred he just bought it from a dude. where was the bill of sale or ANY OTHER PROOF that he did purchase it didn't have it.

you have one guy saying he commited the murder and thats why he had the gun, and then you (the person with possession of the gun) are saying the other guy sold it and he did the crime. do you see how all of that could have been avoided if he purchased it legally?

The prosecution must share all of their evidence with the defense attorneys. If they shared this evidence then the defense would have been able to share it with the jury and therefore he would have won the case.

yes i agree 100% clear him of the robbery charge...but what about the murder?

[BustedS13]

ASSUMING, his story his true and he didn't commit the crimes himself, he didn't have it's registration transferred he just bought it from a dude. where was the bill of sale or ANY OTHER PROOF that he did purchase it didn't have it.

none of that is required in Louisiana. there are states where you can buy guns with cash, without any of that nonsense. in my state, whether you are buying from a gun store or some guy's trunk, you can pay with cash and walk out with your purchase strapped to your belt, as long as you're 18 (21 for handguns)


busteds13, why do you only post the negative police/prosecution stories? how about the positives? i'm not trying to start an e-battle or invite immature comments i'm actually really curious.

what do you want me to do, post stories about police saving kittens trapped in wells? come on.
this story caught my eye because i think capital punishment should be abolished. i've posted police beatdown videos before because i think we've given too much power to the police. they don't all abuse it, but plenty do, and we need to reel them in a bit. but it'll never happen. really, i post this kind of stuff because i'm more disenfranchised with my country every day, and it's a bummer.

[sidewaysil80]

i think we've given too much power to the police. they don't all abuse it, but plenty do, and we need to reel them in a bit. but it'll never happen. really, i post this kind of stuff because i'm more disenfranchised with my country every day, and it's a bummer.

as much as i disagree with you at least you have a reason, which is more then half the "pig haters" of this country.

[vas570sx]

damn, that was a good read. i hope nothing like that was ever to happen to me.

[slowvia]

honestly i don't even feel bad. this whole thing would have been avoided if he didn't buy a handgun (that was used in a crime) illegally. and i don't understand how they "hid" evidence, they just didn't present it...put yourself in the prosecutors shoes. you have a guy who probably is a low class member of society and i'm willing to bet he has some priors considering he had no problem buying a gun illegally (i wonder what he was going to use it for?), but regardless, said guy gets caught with gun and property from a crime, then you have THE VICTIM TESTIFYING it was him...why would you as a prosecutor knowingly submit evidence that would clear him. that defeats the whole purpose of the american judicial system if prosecutors and defense attorneys were contradicting themselves and presenting evidence that HURT their case...not helped it.

So you think its OK to send a man to the chair for a crime he didnt commit because he bought a handgun (legally or not) and looked like a murderer? And its OK for prosecutors to ignore hard evidence that can actually save a life?
So if you were a prosecutor trying a murder case where your primary suspect was innocent, but you were the only one who knew (aside from the suspect obviously) you would let him die?
Sorry buddy, I could not disagree with you more.

[Matej]

Putting people to death/keeping them in prison for decades is such a waste of perfectly good medical research subjects/space travel monkeys/crash test dummies/etc.

[VROOOM]

ASSUMING, his story his true and he didn't commit the crimes himself, he didn't have it's registration transferred he just bought it from a dude. where was the bill of sale or ANY OTHER PROOF that he did purchase it didn't have it.



you didnt need a FFL to transfer guns until 1991. at least in CA thats the law. i cant see Louisiana being tougher than CA on gun laws.

[Darren]

honestly i don't even feel bad. this whole thing would have been avoided if he didn't buy a handgun (that was used in a crime) illegally. and i don't understand how they "hid" evidence, they just didn't present it...put yourself in the prosecutors shoes. you have a guy who probably is a low class member of society and i'm willing to bet he has some priors considering he had no problem buying a gun illegally (i wonder what he was going to use it for?), but regardless, said guy gets caught with gun and property from a crime, then you have THE VICTIM TESTIFYING it was him...why would you as a prosecutor knowingly submit evidence that would clear him. that defeats the whole purpose of the american judicial system if prosecutors and defense attorneys were contradicting themselves and presenting evidence that HURT their case...not helped it.

Sadly, he's right, it's the DEFENSE attorney's job to track that info down and present it, not the prosecutor's

[HalveBlue]

Sadly, he's right, it's the DEFENSE attorney's job to track that info down and present it, not the prosecutor's

WRONG!

I don't know how it works up in Canadia, but in the US withholding of evidence is illegal.

[theicecreamdan]

honestly i don't even feel bad. this whole thing would have been avoided if he didn't buy a handgun (that was used in a crime) illegally. and i don't understand how they "hid" evidence, they just didn't present it...put yourself in the prosecutors shoes. you have a guy who probably is a low class member of society and i'm willing to bet he has some priors considering he had no problem buying a gun illegally (i wonder what he was going to use it for?), but regardless, said guy gets caught with gun and property from a crime, then you have THE VICTIM TESTIFYING it was him...why would you as a prosecutor knowingly submit evidence that would clear him. that defeats the whole purpose of the american judicial system if prosecutors and defense attorneys were contradicting themselves and presenting evidence that HURT their case...not helped it.

When ALL of your evidence doesn't add up, you look for the missing pieces and figure out why.

Our justice system shouldn't be trying to put somebody in jail, they should be trying to put the RIGHT people in jail.

[sidewaysil80]

lol, folks you're missing my point.
-man murders/robs someone
-man is found guilty and sentenced to life
-man is then found guilty of robbery
-man is sentenced to death because of his PRIOR MURDER CONVICTION
-evidence surfaces clears man of robbery charge and drops death sentence
-man is free? why...what did the blood evidence at the robbery have to do with his murder wrap?

why does he get a freebie? just because he spent some time on death row? i got it and agree he didn't commit the robbery. but aren't we forgetting this man that everyone is feeling sorry for and lashing out at the man for is a f'ing convicted murder? whos only defense was..."i bought the victims ring AND the murder weapon".



So you think its OK to send a man to the chair for a crime he didnt commit because he bought a handgun (legally or not) and looked like a murderer? And its OK for prosecutors to ignore hard evidence that can actually save a life?


so you think it's ok to let a scum bag murdering/thief out of jail because evidence cleared him of a completley seperate less violent crime then the one he was originally convicted of (i.e. the murder)

[BustedS13]

lol, folks you're missing my point.
-man murders/robs someone
-man is found guilty and sentenced to life
-man is then found guilty of robbery
-man is sentenced to death because of his PRIOR MURDER CONVICTION
-evidence surfaces clears man of robbery charge and drops death sentence
-man is free? why...what did the blood evidence at the robbery have to do with his murder wrap?

why does he get a freebie? just because he spent some time on death row? i got it and agree he didn't commit the robbery. but aren't we forgetting this man that everyone is feeling sorry for and lashing out at the man for is a f'ing convicted murder? whos only defense was..."i bought the victims ring AND the murder


so you think it's ok to let a scum bag murdering/thief out of jail because evidence cleared him of a completley seperate less violent crime then the one he was originally convicted of (i.e. the murder)

You need to reread the article, or link me to whatever you're reading, because that's not how I understood the story at all.

[theicecreamdan]

why does he get a freebie? just because he spent some time on death row? i got it and agree he didn't commit the robbery. but aren't we forgetting this man that everyone is feeling sorry for and lashing out at the man for is a f'ing convicted murder? whos only defense was..."i bought the victims ring AND the murder weapon".

so you think it's ok to let a scum bag murdering/thief out of jail because evidence cleared him of a completley seperate less violent crime then the one he was originally convicted of (i.e. the murder)

"As a result, the armed robbery conviction was thrown out in 1999, and I was taken off death row. Then, in 2002, my murder conviction was thrown out. At a retrial the following year, the jury took only 35 minutes to acquit me. "

[revcyanide]

lol, folks you're missing my point.
-man murders/robs someone
-man is found guilty and sentenced to life
-man is then found guilty of robbery
-man is sentenced to death because of his PRIOR MURDER CONVICTION
-evidence surfaces clears man of robbery charge and drops death sentence
-man is free? why...what did the blood evidence at the robbery have to do with his murder wrap?

why does he get a freebie? just because he spent some time on death row? i got it and agree he didn't commit the robbery. but aren't we forgetting this man that everyone is feeling sorry for and lashing out at the man for is a f'ing convicted murder? whos only defense was..."i bought the victims ring AND the murder weapon".





so you think it's ok to let a scum bag murdering/thief out of jail because evidence cleared him of a completley seperate less violent crime then the one he was originally convicted of (i.e. the murder)

what the hell story did you read?

[TheWolf]

Everyone should be required to attend 4 hours of sentencing at your local courthouse in highschool. I was and it was the most eye opening experience ever. All the ideals about how you think you're going to argue your case in front of the judge or some law and order bullshit and leniency. Not once. In those 4 hours did anyone with a public defender ever get anything but the max. They were so under represented it was a joke. Those that paid real money and hired real lawyers all got off on reduced sentences with extenuating circumstances. If you're going to buy rings and guns from your sketchy ghetto bro.. make sure you can afford a real lawyer.

[soreballz]

so you think it's ok to let a scum bag murdering/thief out of jail because evidence cleared him of a completley seperate less violent crime then the one he was originally convicted of (i.e. the murder)
Lolwut.
Seems to me like it's people like you that are part of the problem.

[sidewaysil80]

You need to reread the article, or link me to whatever you're reading, because that's not how I understood the story at all.
yeah, my bad i was under the impression that the murder charge preceeded the robbery charge. clearly it was the other way around but it doesn't affect my argument.

Lolwut.
Seems to me like it's people like you that are part of the problem.
LOL why? because i want to know the details of why he was acquitted of murder? i feel that EVEN if he is innocent of the murder charge it's partly his own fault that he is in this situation based on who he associated with and conducted business. lets cut the bullshit that he and his friend were some avid gun enthusiasts who bought and sold firearms on a daily basis...whether it was required or not it doesn't matter why/how would you be stupid enough to buy a gun (from an obviously shady dude) and not have proof?

due to overwhelming evidence he was found guilty of murder and sentenced, but then robbery charge is faulty and he was magically acquitted of the murder case shortly after. why?! was it because his laywers played the whole "he spent time on death row he didn't deserve" and the jury felt bad and acquitted? or was it his "i bought the gun i swear story" that swayed them to acquit? i feel that he milked the publicity of the faulty robbery charge to his advantage and potentially got away with the murder. i want to know what new evidence (if any) lead to him being acquitted for murder. if i was being accused of murder and prosecutors case was soley because i had possession of the gun, why wouldn't you tell someone? why didn't his laywers bring it up? why would you wait YEARS later after your acquitted for another crime and THEN bring it up that "hey the gun wasn't mine".

[DSMelitistPrick]

yeah, my bad i was under the impression that the murder charge preceeded the robbery charge. clearly it was the other way around but it doesn't affect my argument.


LOL why? because i want to know the details of why he was acquitted of murder? i feel that EVEN if he is innocent of the murder charge it's partly his own fault that he is in this situation based on who he associated with and conducted business. lets cut the bullshit that he and his friend were some avid gun enthusiasts who bought and sold firearms on a daily basis...whether it was required or not it doesn't matter why/how would you be stupid enough to buy a gun (from an obviously shady dude) and not have proof?

due to overwhelming evidence he was found guilty of murder and sentenced, but then robbery charge is faulty and he was magically acquitted of the murder case shortly after. why?! was it because his laywers played the whole "he spent time on death row he didn't deserve" and the jury felt bad and acquitted? or was it his "i bought the gun i swear story" that swayed them to acquit? i feel that he milked the publicity of the faulty robbery charge to his advantage and potentially got away with the murder. i want to know what new evidence (if any) lead to him being acquitted for murder. if i was being accused of murder and prosecutors case was soley because i had possession of the gun, why wouldn't you tell someone? why didn't his laywers bring it up? why would you wait YEARS later after your acquitted for another crime and THEN bring it up that "hey the gun wasn't mine".

Why he was acquitted is irrelevant. The job of the police and prosecutors is to make sure that the person who killed the victim is behind bars. If the wrong person is in prison, a murderer is roaming the streets...and that should terrify all of us. A prosecutor that withholds evidence that could clear an innocent person is leaving a violent criminal on the street, and therefore is endangering all of us. Period.

[daryl337]

Actually taking time to read the story, a line that interests me is : "Of the six men one of my prosecutors got sentenced to death, five eventually had their convictions reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct."

That is scary. You can try to justify your blind faith in the judicial system (as well as the police force from what I have seen in other posts), but hiding scientific evidence from any defense attourney is a crime. Unfortunately, for the writer, he had bad lawyers. If he was facing the death penalty already, might as well let the guy make his case instead of bending over and taking it.

[RB180sxChris]

Simply messed the fuck up......makes me sick there are bastards like that in the justice system...beyond fucked up!!!!!