20 ms·

For the First Time, a Prosecutor Will Go to Jail for Wrongfully Convicting

468 points by fahimulhaq 11y ago

function_seven 11y ago
For 10 days. I suppose it's a start, though.
6d0debc071 11y ago
Community service, ten days in jail, and losing his law license. For wilfully sending an innocent man to jail for twenty five years - having resigned anyway. That's a fucking joke. "What's newsworthy and novel about today's plea is that a prosecutor was actually punished in a meaningful way for his transgressions." I'm sure we'd all like to be so 'meaningfully' punished for serious crimes. It's better than nothing - which seems to be the usual state of affairs - but it's clearly one law for the rich and one law for the poor.
- clort 11y ago
  > Community service, ten days in jail, and losing his law license. 500 hours of community service. In the US what does that mean, 3 months of picking litter by the road in an orange jumpsuit? Or does it mean that he can work for the prosecutors office for free for that time (obviously, he has a lot of experience there) He also lost his law licence. What does that mean, how old was the guy? I don't know how it works in the US but if it effectively means forced retirement then he will be on a reduced pension, and moreover can't go for any cushy positions normally available for a retired prosecutor. This also showed that judges ought to be asking this question of prosecutors.. I wonder if the defence can ask this question in the court and ask for similar sanctions if it were proved later that the prosecutor knew something they didn't disclose. I wonder what has he been doing in the two years since this article was written?
raverbashing 11y ago
It's a start, but 10 days is a slap in the wrist
currentoor 11y ago
Oh come on! He should at least be sent to jail for the same number of years he took away from an innocent man.
- georgeportillo 11y ago
  I completely fucking agree. This makes me really mad.
colin_jack 11y ago
I'm not an expert on the UK legal system but one thing I enjoyed about the Serial podcast was getting an insight into just how crazy the US system can be. Anyway 10 days is obviously nothing, especially when he's cost a man 25 years, but at least it's an attempt to hold someone responsible for a despicable act.
- smcl 11y ago
  If you found that interesting, there's an excellent episode of This American Life called "The Arms Trader" which is another example of how messed up the law can be over the pond. The FBI (or another TLA agency) basically played both buyer and seller in a bogus arms deal, and managed to stitch up a bumbling old man for facilitating the transaction. It's almost comical how much handholding they needed to do with this guy to coax him into this situation, until you realise they then came down on him like a ton of bricks. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/292/the-arms-trader http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/292/t...
  - colin_jack 11y ago
    Ta will definitely give it a look, one nice thing about Serial is it put me onto This American Life which I'm enjoying (in parts, some of it puts my teeth on edge). The depressing bit about the system is even when it's clear there's been a potential miscarriage of justice, and some poor sod has spent years behind bars on very shaky grounds, the system still tries its best to keep them there without retrial.
  - Chathamization 11y ago
    People should also definitely check out "The Convert." The FBI sent some guy into a mosque to act like a Muslim radical and to try to get members of the mosque to plant a terrorist attack. He befriended some guys and hung out with them, and then tried to get them in trouble by telling them they should plan a terrorist attack. The guys from the mosque promptly called the FBI to turn over the FBI plant (not knowing he was an FBI plant). The FBI responded by pressing charges against one of the guys from the mosque because of some youtube videos he shared. It's insane. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/the-convert http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/t...
smegel 11y ago
American justice is bizarre. It seems so dependent on the prosecutor doing the "right thing" it makes you wonder why they bother with a defense team, judge or jury at all. Just let the prosecutor decide who's guilty!
- jackpirate 11y ago
  Then how would the rich avoid punishment for their crimes? /s (but only slightly)
  - tsotha 11y ago
    Statistically the rich don't do any better than anyone who can afford a lawyer. The people who get screwed are the ones relying on court-appointed counsel. They do significantly worse.
    - rplnt 11y ago
      Just an anecdote, but extremes like this happen too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Durst#Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Durst#Trial
    - Confusion 11y ago
      Being able to afford a lawyer is synonymous with being rich. If you can spend 100K on lawyer fees without going bankrupt, you were rich.
      - tsotha 11y ago
        Most people who own a house or have savings or have family can scrape together enough money to engage a lawyer. How much that actually costs depends on the charge. So many cases are pled out these days (98% at the federal level), I doubt more than a tiny percentage of defendants are spending anything like $100k.
    - hyperpape 11y ago
      Guessing this is conditional on getting brought to trial right? A prosecutor is going to bring a murder charge no matter who the suspect is, but that Senator's son's DUI? Or that four star general sharing classified information with his mistress? Might get pled for chump change or charges mgbt get dropped.
IndianAstronaut 11y ago
I'm curious if there is a startup opportunity here to bring defense law to the masses. There is legal zoom for paperwork type issues, but could better knowledge of the law in the hands of a common man be a way to go?
- mike_hearn 11y ago
  There have been various attempts to apply software to law, none of which were very convincing. The biggest impact has been on legal discovery. Often the evidence one side or another needs is buried in massive quantities of documents, e.g. corporate memos. It used to involve people manually going through every document. Now computers can build a search engine just for that case, based on the documents either being originally electronic, or scanned. So it's easier to find the evidence you need to either prosecute or exonerate. There have been attempts at legal 'expert systems'. Expert systems were an offshoot of early AI where people were put through computerised interviews that tried to automate otherwise skilled investigative procedures. I have not heard of legal expert systems being in use anywhere, but I am not in the legal industry so if they were, I wouldn't know about them. I suspect they're easier to apply to things like routine property law than complex criminal cases. There's also the Hammurabi project. That is very interesting, though again, not relevant here. It tries to encode law in a custom programming language to automatically build expert systems based on it. It's more useful for things like navigating the absurdly complicated US tax code than criminal defence (of course the two may sometimes overlap). http://mpoulshock.github.io/hammurabi/ http://mpoulshock.github.io/hammurabi/
pmontra 11y ago
10 days deserved vs 25 years undeserved? It's a joke. He should serve at least 25 years too.
- weddpros 11y ago
  and he should be ordered to give back 25 years of his own salary to that poor guy
- de_Selby 11y ago
  Exactly, I can't believe this is being billed as a success of the legal system.
  - codyb 11y ago
    It's the first time it's ever happened. While it may not be justice to the man who served 25 years for a crime he didn't commit, it is a step forward and will serve as a ruling for future trials with similar circumstance.
- struppi 11y ago
  I agree that 10 days is very short for what he did. But the other part of your comment, "He should serve at least 25 years too", does not sound right to me either. I think that the primary goal of court scentences should not be revenge, but "justice". Whatever that means. The possibility of punishment should be there to deter people from committing crimes. And they should be there so that after a crime, society can say: "See, we are serious about this. We do not want people to do those things". So, the "revenge" thinking (with the extreme of "Take one life, and we'll kill you") does not seem right to me. Also, AFAIK, it was not designed into our juridical system - Which was designed to get past the "eye for an eye" system that was there before. I also think that the primary goal of our prisons should be to re-integrate people into society, not punish them, but this is a completely different topic... Edit: Clarified "The possibility of punishment should be there to deter"
  - lultimouomo 11y ago
    And I think many studies have shown that it's the probability of getting caught that dissuades from a crime, much more than the severity of the punishment. How many prosecutors would hide evidence if they had even a 10% chance of getting caught, going to jail for 10 days and loose their career, like it happened in this case? That's what's important in my opinion.
afandian 11y ago
10 days isn't 'a slap on the wrist', or 'a good start' it's tantamount to immunity.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  He also lost his license and presumably his job which is probably the more serious consequence than the 10 days.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Sure, but you can only say that because he didn't get 5 years in jail.
  - mikekchar 11y ago
    Although according to the article, it seems he has already retired.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Unlike the guy that spent 25 years in jail that lost the best years of his life ...
  - afandian 11y ago
    Losing your license and job are (should be) standard for malpractice. I think you can cancel that bit out. I'm talking about the bit where he knowingly sent innocent people to jail and abused his position.
spuz 11y ago
This article is from 2013.
- nmc 11y ago
  Updated: 10/16/2015 1:59 pm EDT However it does not say what the update was.
  - corvus_sapiens 11y ago
    There is no difference. I just ran a diff. https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-godsey/for-the-first-time-ever-a_b_4221000.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffin...
vishnugupta 11y ago
I was contemplating about this in the context of many similar posts on HN (Aaron Swartz [1] being a prime one). And I realized the power that lawyers/prosecutors wield over accused is enormous. To win a case they can design outrageous plea bargains - plead guilty and get 5 years, don't plead and face death if convicted. Even if lawyers representing accused try to educate him that the chances of conviction are less than 1% the fear of facing death penalty is so enormous that accused typically end up pleading guilty. And not without a reason. Loss aversion plays a big role when a human arrives at a decision. And just like that the prosecutor who initially had a very little chance of winning the case ends up winning it. I know that I'm sort of oversimplifying here but the key take away here is that prosecutor has absolutely nothing to lose! Well OK, he could end up losing the case but that's nothing compared to what accused stand to lose. There needs to be a counterbalance to the power wielded by prosecutors, and this is a good start! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7998287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7998287
- whybroke 11y ago
  Just FYI, in the 25 years and hundreds of cases my father saw in criminal court, only one was _not_ convicted: If you end up in front of a criminal judge (at least in California) you are essentially guaranteed of being convinced. There was one death penalty case he saw in that time and while conviction was, as always a certainty, a separate hearing decides "special circumstances" (execution) or just life in prison. To "help the judge make the right decision" the court room was packed to overflowing with a silent audience who obviously universally wanted the death penalty. So two defendants were sentenced to death for a single murder that day.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > 25 years and hundreds of cases my father saw in criminal court, only one was _not_ convicted That seems very wrong.
    - hawkice 11y ago
      If only because over 25 years surely he would have made it into the thousands of cases, unless he's doing less than one a week.
catshirt 11y ago
10 days is completely fucking negligible. i'd put myself in jail for 10 days just for the experience. disgusting.
- t2015_08_25 11y ago
  i agree. i just wanted to raise the imagery of being a prosecutor in jail. if they're hostile to child molesters, imagine what they do to prosecutors! yowza.
corvus_sapiens 11y ago
I don't get the point of discussing a two-year-old article about an event that also occurred two years ago. Can someone enlighten me? Has something changed? Edit: You can check for yourself. https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-godsey/for-the-first-time-ever-a_b_4221000.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffin... The article wasn't updated. The only addition is that "Prison Tattoos" thing at the bottom.
- a3n 11y ago
  I guess when you run out of other outlets' articles to recycle, you have to recycle your own.
tsotha 11y ago
It's really past time to get rid of the qualified immunity doctrine. It's yet another "law" made up by the supreme court from whole cloth. Prosecutors should be fully liable for illegal actions they take even when they're performing official duties. This guy should be serving a sentence years long, not days.
- a3n 11y ago
  > It's really past time to get rid of the qualified immunity doctrine. It's yet another "law" made up by the supreme court from whole cloth. This is where every system that polices others plus themselves falls down. You can think of qualified immunity as professional courtesy between lawyers. In Wisconsin the Republican legislature and Republican governor (the recently failed presidential candidate Walker) passed and signed a law limiting political corruption investigations, because they were annoyed at all the investigations and convictions of themselves. No one watches the watchers.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    That's a terrible example. Those John Doe investigations were a great example of prosecutorial abuse. If I had been Walker I would have had the state AG indict the prosecutors involved for corruption.
Gonzih 11y ago
10 days in prison... how fair...
kriro 11y ago
There's a libertarian argument that I've always found interesting. If you convict someone you are liable to receive X% (usually X>=100) of the exact punishment if it somehow turns out the conviction was wrong. I couldn't see this working on a large scale but it's an interesting thought experiment (would there be a death penalty, would there be any convictions at all etc.). It's usually linked to the idea that only victims should be able to sue and that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. I've always thought that a probabilistic justice system of sorts would be interesting. Something along the lines of "the default punishment for this is 10 years however we are only 60% certain about the conviction thus the verdict is X years (maybe something logarithmic, certainly not 6 years)"
- Asbostos 11y ago
  Your 2nd idea is a fascinating one. The legal system has a weird binary concept of "proof" that doesn't exist anywhere else except perhaps maths. It might still need some threshold of certainty to stop harassment or gaming the system with a lot of low-probability cases that are easy to fabricate. Your first idea would have a problem in that people who's job is to convict people will accumulate that risk the longer they work. By chance, they're bound to get it wrong from time to time so it would unfairly punish those with the longest careers.
  - vishnugupta 11y ago
    >....people who's job is to convict people .... This, right here, is the heart of the matter for me. If we have people whose job is to convict people then they'll do whatever it takes, not necessarily serve justice or do the right thing, to convict anyone coming their way. However, if you change the job goal to "reduce crime rate", or some such metric, then they would at least try to do what's fair.
    - simonh 11y ago
      This is essentially the difference between an adversarial as against an inquisitorial system such as in France, Italy and others.
bluesilver07 11y ago
Michael Morton's book on the whole ordeal is a fascinating (and sometimes depressing) read - http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Life-Innocent-25-Year-Journey/dp/147675683X http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Life-Innocent-25-Year-Journey/.... His answers on Quora - https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Morton-8 https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Morton-8
trevmckendrick 11y ago
It appears he only served 5 of the 10 days. http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-released-from-williamson-county-jail/nbtKN/ http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-releas... (The original post is from 2013)
- ohitsdom 11y ago
  Released early on good behavior! Wow, just wow.
s_dev 11y ago
"Let the punishment fit the crime" - works both ways. Putting an innocent man in prison is far far worse than than letting a guilty man basically go free as is the case here. An important precedent but far far from ideal or whats necessary.
simonh 11y ago
Does anyone know if the wrongfully convicted victim has the right to sue the former prosecutor in civil court? I'd have thought so, but there's no mention of this possibility in the article. If so, there would be a difference between the criminal offence of withholding evidence versus the civil offence of selling the victim down the river.
- nske 11y ago
  In a system where people win trials for milions if the coffee you sell them is too hot, I would be surprised if that victim can't literally crucify the Ken Anderson guy in court for all that he has, in terms of years and money. If not, then this is a really fucked-up system.
  - mdpopescu 11y ago
    Off-topic: you probably don't know the facts about the coffee case :) http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - drawk 11y ago
    The coffee trial is one of my pet peeves. The lady had severe burns on her legs, genitals and torso. She had to go to the icu, and then to a burn clinic, and then later went through at least one round of surgery. The location that served the coffee had been written up for the temperature being way too high, but no one ever acted on it. IIRC that penalty was appealed, and I think they settled on a lesser amount later. Also, part of having a healthy justice system is having the ability to sue for literally any, or no reason. In an ideal world a flagrant lawsuit would just get thrown out without any harm to either party. Unfortunately we've built a system where a suit can bankrupt either party, so it turns into a war of attrition.
  - nske 11y ago
    @drawk & @mdpopescu: I apologise, indeed I hadn't read all the facts about the coffee case and I don't find it ridicoulous any more. In any case, I really hope Michael Morton finds some real justice and Ken Anderson doesn't get off the hook that easily. What happened make me feel very angry. Not that long since I read about this terrible injustice as well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/11/glenn-ford-black-man-wrongfully-convicted_n_4944670.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/11/glenn-ford-black-ma...
jhwhite 11y ago
10 days in prison is not enough.
spodek 11y ago
See After Innocence (free on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWyaolBlXVc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWyaolBlXVc) for a disturbing portrayal of wrongful convictions in the United States. The men exonerated by the Innocence Project (99% proven wrongfully convicted are men) serve an average of thirteen years before exoneration, sometimes years after the exoneration happens. The documentary shows prosecutors keeping people in prison, and therefore guilty people free, with impunity. The Innocence Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project
kelvin0 11y ago
Wow, nice slap on the wrist for having someong rot in prison for 25 years. And justice for all ...
balabaster 11y ago
Did I miss a bit in this article - the innocently convicted man did 25 years. The prosecutor, knowing his innocence, withheld the evidence that allowed this conviction to pass but only did 500 hours (approx. 3 months) of community service and 10 days in prison. An innocent man lost 25 years of his life and the man who caused this eventually, after a reasonably successful career lost what may as well equate to some vacation time... Am I the only one who is horrified at this? Okay, so he got more than a slap on the wrist, but what the fuck is this?! That's bullshit! Pardon my linguistics, but my horror at this injustice leaves me short for words. The only restitution that would make this even marginally okay is if the prosecutor/judge had been required to: - House the convicted man. - Set him up with training that would allow the convicted to re-integrate meaningfully into today's society. - Assist the man to find meaningful and gainful employment. - Set him up with a pension plan that would have been equivalent to see him through retirement. - Set him up for success in the manner in which he would have been able to provide for himself had he been a free man. - Feed him, clothe him and pay his utility bills until such a time as his income would allow him to successfully stand on his own two feet. Even then, he owes this man 25 years of his service to make up for what was taken from him. If that bankrupts his accuser, so be it.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Prepare to be twice as angry! /s Ken Anderson spent only five days in jail. http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-released-from-williamson-county-jail/nbtKN/ http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-releas... >Am I the only one who is horrified at this? No.
  - balabaster 11y ago
    I don't even know what to say about that... I'm speechless.
  - bsenftner 11y ago
    I "love" how Huffpost frames this as "meaningful punishment" as if saying so makes that farce acceptable. I'm with the OP of this thread, that judge owes this man 25 years.
kabdib 11y ago
A slap on the wrist. The prosecutor should have gone to jail for MUCH longer.
vaadu 11y ago
Anderson should get life without parole. A message needs to be sent to government officials that abuse there powers. Taking 25 years from this innocent man is just the tip of the iceberg. He also took 25 years from his relatives. And this is probably not an isolated incident for him.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
known 11y ago
"Diverse society will fail" --Putnam; Let black Police deal with black Culprits; http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...
MaxFrax 11y ago
cool, this is really interesting
rayiner 11y ago
I think we need to punish prosecutorial misconduct more aggressively. That said, you can better understand the status quo if you think of the criminal justice system in terms of interconnected problems. First problem: making sure prosecutors are held personally liable for the X% of convictions that are wrongful and arise from prosecutorial misconduct. Second problem: ensuring that people are freed for the Y% of convictions that are wrongful and don't result from misconduct. Third problem: ensuring that the system can function to uphold the (100 - Y - X)% of convictions that are not wrongful. The fact of the matter is that Y is a small number. And X is a much smaller number than that. Yet, the (100 - Y - X)% of convicts who are really guilty have no less incentive to appeal or sue for misconduct than the X% of people who have a valid case. Consequently, the justice system is awash in frivolous appeals and habeas petitions. If it was just an issue of holding prosecutors liable in X% of cases, then this would be a much easier problem. But you have to do that without giving the (100 - Y - X)% of the justly-convicted a powerful tool to harass and abuse prosecutors who engaged in no wrongdoing. That makes the problem much harder.
- Tloewald 11y ago
  For capital cases the number of faulty convictions is disturbingly high -- 4.1% according to a widely reported study. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-s...
- mr_luc 11y ago
  The system doesn't have enough capacity to deal with the frivolous appeals and habeas corpus petitions? Gee, that's too bad. If only there was something the justice system could do to reduce the number of people going into this pipeline! Well, I'll let you go, Justice System -- I see you found a dude with a few grams of acid paper, which I think we can all agree makes him basically El Chapo.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The justice system can and does handle all those appeals and habeas petitions. But there is a difference between giving people a chance to prove their innocence, and making it easier for them to try and have prosecutors imprisoned for misconduct. And reducing the number of cases would not change the calculus. If you had fewer convicts you'd need fewer prosecutors, but the ratios for each prosecutor would not change. The basic problem is that if you make it easier for 1 person to hold the prosecutor accountable for actual misconduct, you make it easier for 20-30 validly convicted people to harass prosecutors who did nothing wrong.
jccc 11y ago
I really, really appreciate this accountability (such as it is), but the moral standard people are seeing here is too high. The convicted man's guilt or innocence should not matter at all when judging the conduct of the prosecutor.
davidgerard 11y ago
2013
maxxxxx 11y ago
I don't understand why the punishment is not much tougher. People like prosecutors, cops and judges are entrusted by society with power over people's lives. Illegal behavior in such a role should be viewed much more severely. A government can't work if it doesn't operate to the highest standards.
- mdpopescu 11y ago
  You need to read Systemantics. The purpose of the government is not to help you.
hawleyal 11y ago
5 days for 25 years, seems legit
xacaxulu 11y ago
Equal time served should be the punishment here. That would act as a deterrent to such malicious behaviour in the future.
GPGPU 11y ago
Didn't Mike Nifong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong go to jail for wrongfully _prosecuting_ those Duke Lacrosse players? I didn't understand the title because only a Judge and/or Jury can convict people.
joesmo 11y ago
10 days in jail? How about start with 25 years and then work your way up from there? That'd be justice, but in the US that won't happen. We can always hope he gets murdered in jail though, but they'll probably put him in solitary. I'm still hoping though ...
maskedinvader 11y ago
this was really really depressing to read. Feel bad for the man and I hope the prosecutor suffers the rest of his days
vincentleeuwen 11y ago
Wow. 10 days vs 25 years. This seems like real justice...
akshat_h 11y ago
Not sure if this has been raised somewhere else in this thread, but if prosecutor didn't disclose evidence, did the defense also not know about the evidence, considering it was the child of the accused. Is the balance of power in favor of prosecution? Also, now that the the accused in the case has been declared not guilty, will there be an investigation into who actually committed the murder?
aagha 11y ago
Whew! Thank goodness he got that community service time and 10 days in jail for ruining a man's life for 25 years!

468 points by fahimulhaq 11y ago

For 10 days. I suppose it's a start, though.

Community service, ten days in jail, and losing his law license. For wilfully sending an innocent man to jail for twenty five years - having resigned anyway. That's a fucking joke. "What's newsworthy and novel about today's plea is that a prosecutor was actually punished in a meaningful way for his transgressions." I'm sure we'd all like to be so 'meaningfully' punished for serious crimes. It's better than nothing - which seems to be the usual state of affairs - but it's clearly one law for the rich and one law for the poor.

clort 11y ago
> Community service, ten days in jail, and losing his law license. 500 hours of community service. In the US what does that mean, 3 months of picking litter by the road in an orange jumpsuit? Or does it mean that he can work for the prosecutors office for free for that time (obviously, he has a lot of experience there) He also lost his law licence. What does that mean, how old was the guy? I don't know how it works in the US but if it effectively means forced retirement then he will be on a reduced pension, and moreover can't go for any cushy positions normally available for a retired prosecutor. This also showed that judges ought to be asking this question of prosecutors.. I wonder if the defence can ask this question in the court and ask for similar sanctions if it were proved later that the prosecutor knew something they didn't disclose. I wonder what has he been doing in the two years since this article was written?

raverbashing 11y ago

It's a start, but 10 days is a slap in the wrist

currentoor 11y ago

Oh come on! He should at least be sent to jail for the same number of years he took away from an innocent man.

georgeportillo 11y ago
I completely fucking agree. This makes me really mad.

colin_jack 11y ago

I'm not an expert on the UK legal system but one thing I enjoyed about the Serial podcast was getting an insight into just how crazy the US system can be. Anyway 10 days is obviously nothing, especially when he's cost a man 25 years, but at least it's an attempt to hold someone responsible for a despicable act.

smcl 11y ago
If you found that interesting, there's an excellent episode of This American Life called "The Arms Trader" which is another example of how messed up the law can be over the pond. The FBI (or another TLA agency) basically played both buyer and seller in a bogus arms deal, and managed to stitch up a bumbling old man for facilitating the transaction. It's almost comical how much handholding they needed to do with this guy to coax him into this situation, until you realise they then came down on him like a ton of bricks. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/292/the-arms-trader http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/292/t...
- colin_jack 11y ago
  Ta will definitely give it a look, one nice thing about Serial is it put me onto This American Life which I'm enjoying (in parts, some of it puts my teeth on edge). The depressing bit about the system is even when it's clear there's been a potential miscarriage of justice, and some poor sod has spent years behind bars on very shaky grounds, the system still tries its best to keep them there without retrial.
- Chathamization 11y ago
  People should also definitely check out "The Convert." The FBI sent some guy into a mosque to act like a Muslim radical and to try to get members of the mosque to plant a terrorist attack. He befriended some guys and hung out with them, and then tried to get them in trouble by telling them they should plan a terrorist attack. The guys from the mosque promptly called the FBI to turn over the FBI plant (not knowing he was an FBI plant). The FBI responded by pressing charges against one of the guys from the mosque because of some youtube videos he shared. It's insane. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/the-convert http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/t...

smegel 11y ago

American justice is bizarre. It seems so dependent on the prosecutor doing the "right thing" it makes you wonder why they bother with a defense team, judge or jury at all. Just let the prosecutor decide who's guilty!

jackpirate 11y ago
Then how would the rich avoid punishment for their crimes? /s (but only slightly)
- tsotha 11y ago
  Statistically the rich don't do any better than anyone who can afford a lawyer. The people who get screwed are the ones relying on court-appointed counsel. They do significantly worse.
  - rplnt 11y ago
    Just an anecdote, but extremes like this happen too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Durst#Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Durst#Trial
  - Confusion 11y ago
    Being able to afford a lawyer is synonymous with being rich. If you can spend 100K on lawyer fees without going bankrupt, you were rich.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      Most people who own a house or have savings or have family can scrape together enough money to engage a lawyer. How much that actually costs depends on the charge. So many cases are pled out these days (98% at the federal level), I doubt more than a tiny percentage of defendants are spending anything like $100k.
  - hyperpape 11y ago
    Guessing this is conditional on getting brought to trial right? A prosecutor is going to bring a murder charge no matter who the suspect is, but that Senator's son's DUI? Or that four star general sharing classified information with his mistress? Might get pled for chump change or charges mgbt get dropped.

IndianAstronaut 11y ago

I'm curious if there is a startup opportunity here to bring defense law to the masses. There is legal zoom for paperwork type issues, but could better knowledge of the law in the hands of a common man be a way to go?

mike_hearn 11y ago
There have been various attempts to apply software to law, none of which were very convincing. The biggest impact has been on legal discovery. Often the evidence one side or another needs is buried in massive quantities of documents, e.g. corporate memos. It used to involve people manually going through every document. Now computers can build a search engine just for that case, based on the documents either being originally electronic, or scanned. So it's easier to find the evidence you need to either prosecute or exonerate. There have been attempts at legal 'expert systems'. Expert systems were an offshoot of early AI where people were put through computerised interviews that tried to automate otherwise skilled investigative procedures. I have not heard of legal expert systems being in use anywhere, but I am not in the legal industry so if they were, I wouldn't know about them. I suspect they're easier to apply to things like routine property law than complex criminal cases. There's also the Hammurabi project. That is very interesting, though again, not relevant here. It tries to encode law in a custom programming language to automatically build expert systems based on it. It's more useful for things like navigating the absurdly complicated US tax code than criminal defence (of course the two may sometimes overlap). http://mpoulshock.github.io/hammurabi/ http://mpoulshock.github.io/hammurabi/

pmontra 11y ago

10 days deserved vs 25 years undeserved? It's a joke. He should serve at least 25 years too.

weddpros 11y ago
and he should be ordered to give back 25 years of his own salary to that poor guy
de_Selby 11y ago
Exactly, I can't believe this is being billed as a success of the legal system.
- codyb 11y ago
  It's the first time it's ever happened. While it may not be justice to the man who served 25 years for a crime he didn't commit, it is a step forward and will serve as a ruling for future trials with similar circumstance.
struppi 11y ago
I agree that 10 days is very short for what he did. But the other part of your comment, "He should serve at least 25 years too", does not sound right to me either. I think that the primary goal of court scentences should not be revenge, but "justice". Whatever that means. The possibility of punishment should be there to deter people from committing crimes. And they should be there so that after a crime, society can say: "See, we are serious about this. We do not want people to do those things". So, the "revenge" thinking (with the extreme of "Take one life, and we'll kill you") does not seem right to me. Also, AFAIK, it was not designed into our juridical system - Which was designed to get past the "eye for an eye" system that was there before. I also think that the primary goal of our prisons should be to re-integrate people into society, not punish them, but this is a completely different topic... Edit: Clarified "The possibility of punishment should be there to deter"
- lultimouomo 11y ago
  And I think many studies have shown that it's the probability of getting caught that dissuades from a crime, much more than the severity of the punishment. How many prosecutors would hide evidence if they had even a 10% chance of getting caught, going to jail for 10 days and loose their career, like it happened in this case? That's what's important in my opinion.

afandian 11y ago

10 days isn't 'a slap on the wrist', or 'a good start' it's tantamount to immunity.

Asbostos 11y ago
He also lost his license and presumably his job which is probably the more serious consequence than the 10 days.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Sure, but you can only say that because he didn't get 5 years in jail.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  Although according to the article, it seems he has already retired.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Unlike the guy that spent 25 years in jail that lost the best years of his life ...
- afandian 11y ago
  Losing your license and job are (should be) standard for malpractice. I think you can cancel that bit out. I'm talking about the bit where he knowingly sent innocent people to jail and abused his position.

spuz 11y ago

This article is from 2013.

nmc 11y ago
Updated: 10/16/2015 1:59 pm EDT However it does not say what the update was.
- corvus_sapiens 11y ago
  There is no difference. I just ran a diff. https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-godsey/for-the-first-time-ever-a_b_4221000.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffin...

vishnugupta 11y ago

I was contemplating about this in the context of many similar posts on HN (Aaron Swartz [1] being a prime one). And I realized the power that lawyers/prosecutors wield over accused is enormous. To win a case they can design outrageous plea bargains - plead guilty and get 5 years, don't plead and face death if convicted. Even if lawyers representing accused try to educate him that the chances of conviction are less than 1% the fear of facing death penalty is so enormous that accused typically end up pleading guilty. And not without a reason. Loss aversion plays a big role when a human arrives at a decision. And just like that the prosecutor who initially had a very little chance of winning the case ends up winning it. I know that I'm sort of oversimplifying here but the key take away here is that prosecutor has absolutely nothing to lose! Well OK, he could end up losing the case but that's nothing compared to what accused stand to lose. There needs to be a counterbalance to the power wielded by prosecutors, and this is a good start! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7998287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7998287

whybroke 11y ago
Just FYI, in the 25 years and hundreds of cases my father saw in criminal court, only one was _not_ convicted: If you end up in front of a criminal judge (at least in California) you are essentially guaranteed of being convinced. There was one death penalty case he saw in that time and while conviction was, as always a certainty, a separate hearing decides "special circumstances" (execution) or just life in prison. To "help the judge make the right decision" the court room was packed to overflowing with a silent audience who obviously universally wanted the death penalty. So two defendants were sentenced to death for a single murder that day.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > 25 years and hundreds of cases my father saw in criminal court, only one was _not_ convicted That seems very wrong.
  - hawkice 11y ago
    If only because over 25 years surely he would have made it into the thousands of cases, unless he's doing less than one a week.

catshirt 11y ago

10 days is completely fucking negligible. i'd put myself in jail for 10 days just for the experience. disgusting.

t2015_08_25 11y ago
i agree. i just wanted to raise the imagery of being a prosecutor in jail. if they're hostile to child molesters, imagine what they do to prosecutors! yowza.

corvus_sapiens 11y ago

I don't get the point of discussing a two-year-old article about an event that also occurred two years ago. Can someone enlighten me? Has something changed? Edit: You can check for yourself. https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-godsey/for-the-first-time-ever-a_b_4221000.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffin... The article wasn't updated. The only addition is that "Prison Tattoos" thing at the bottom.

a3n 11y ago
I guess when you run out of other outlets' articles to recycle, you have to recycle your own.

tsotha 11y ago

It's really past time to get rid of the qualified immunity doctrine. It's yet another "law" made up by the supreme court from whole cloth. Prosecutors should be fully liable for illegal actions they take even when they're performing official duties. This guy should be serving a sentence years long, not days.

a3n 11y ago
> It's really past time to get rid of the qualified immunity doctrine. It's yet another "law" made up by the supreme court from whole cloth. This is where every system that polices others plus themselves falls down. You can think of qualified immunity as professional courtesy between lawyers. In Wisconsin the Republican legislature and Republican governor (the recently failed presidential candidate Walker) passed and signed a law limiting political corruption investigations, because they were annoyed at all the investigations and convictions of themselves. No one watches the watchers.
- tsotha 11y ago
  That's a terrible example. Those John Doe investigations were a great example of prosecutorial abuse. If I had been Walker I would have had the state AG indict the prosecutors involved for corruption.

Gonzih 11y ago

10 days in prison... how fair...

kriro 11y ago

There's a libertarian argument that I've always found interesting. If you convict someone you are liable to receive X% (usually X>=100) of the exact punishment if it somehow turns out the conviction was wrong. I couldn't see this working on a large scale but it's an interesting thought experiment (would there be a death penalty, would there be any convictions at all etc.). It's usually linked to the idea that only victims should be able to sue and that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. I've always thought that a probabilistic justice system of sorts would be interesting. Something along the lines of "the default punishment for this is 10 years however we are only 60% certain about the conviction thus the verdict is X years (maybe something logarithmic, certainly not 6 years)"

Asbostos 11y ago
Your 2nd idea is a fascinating one. The legal system has a weird binary concept of "proof" that doesn't exist anywhere else except perhaps maths. It might still need some threshold of certainty to stop harassment or gaming the system with a lot of low-probability cases that are easy to fabricate. Your first idea would have a problem in that people who's job is to convict people will accumulate that risk the longer they work. By chance, they're bound to get it wrong from time to time so it would unfairly punish those with the longest careers.
- vishnugupta 11y ago
  >....people who's job is to convict people .... This, right here, is the heart of the matter for me. If we have people whose job is to convict people then they'll do whatever it takes, not necessarily serve justice or do the right thing, to convict anyone coming their way. However, if you change the job goal to "reduce crime rate", or some such metric, then they would at least try to do what's fair.
  - simonh 11y ago
    This is essentially the difference between an adversarial as against an inquisitorial system such as in France, Italy and others.

bluesilver07 11y ago

Michael Morton's book on the whole ordeal is a fascinating (and sometimes depressing) read - http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Life-Innocent-25-Year-Journey/dp/147675683X http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Life-Innocent-25-Year-Journey/.... His answers on Quora - https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Morton-8 https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Morton-8

trevmckendrick 11y ago

It appears he only served 5 of the 10 days. http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-released-from-williamson-county-jail/nbtKN/ http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-releas... (The original post is from 2013)

ohitsdom 11y ago
Released early on good behavior! Wow, just wow.

s_dev 11y ago

"Let the punishment fit the crime" - works both ways. Putting an innocent man in prison is far far worse than than letting a guilty man basically go free as is the case here. An important precedent but far far from ideal or whats necessary.

simonh 11y ago

Does anyone know if the wrongfully convicted victim has the right to sue the former prosecutor in civil court? I'd have thought so, but there's no mention of this possibility in the article. If so, there would be a difference between the criminal offence of withholding evidence versus the civil offence of selling the victim down the river.

nske 11y ago
In a system where people win trials for milions if the coffee you sell them is too hot, I would be surprised if that victim can't literally crucify the Ken Anderson guy in court for all that he has, in terms of years and money. If not, then this is a really fucked-up system.
- mdpopescu 11y ago
  Off-topic: you probably don't know the facts about the coffee case :) http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- drawk 11y ago
  The coffee trial is one of my pet peeves. The lady had severe burns on her legs, genitals and torso. She had to go to the icu, and then to a burn clinic, and then later went through at least one round of surgery. The location that served the coffee had been written up for the temperature being way too high, but no one ever acted on it. IIRC that penalty was appealed, and I think they settled on a lesser amount later. Also, part of having a healthy justice system is having the ability to sue for literally any, or no reason. In an ideal world a flagrant lawsuit would just get thrown out without any harm to either party. Unfortunately we've built a system where a suit can bankrupt either party, so it turns into a war of attrition.
- nske 11y ago
  @drawk & @mdpopescu: I apologise, indeed I hadn't read all the facts about the coffee case and I don't find it ridicoulous any more. In any case, I really hope Michael Morton finds some real justice and Ken Anderson doesn't get off the hook that easily. What happened make me feel very angry. Not that long since I read about this terrible injustice as well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/11/glenn-ford-black-man-wrongfully-convicted_n_4944670.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/11/glenn-ford-black-ma...

jhwhite 11y ago

10 days in prison is not enough.

spodek 11y ago

See After Innocence (free on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWyaolBlXVc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWyaolBlXVc) for a disturbing portrayal of wrongful convictions in the United States. The men exonerated by the Innocence Project (99% proven wrongfully convicted are men) serve an average of thirteen years before exoneration, sometimes years after the exoneration happens. The documentary shows prosecutors keeping people in prison, and therefore guilty people free, with impunity. The Innocence Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project

kelvin0 11y ago

Wow, nice slap on the wrist for having someong rot in prison for 25 years. And justice for all ...

balabaster 11y ago

Did I miss a bit in this article - the innocently convicted man did 25 years. The prosecutor, knowing his innocence, withheld the evidence that allowed this conviction to pass but only did 500 hours (approx. 3 months) of community service and 10 days in prison. An innocent man lost 25 years of his life and the man who caused this eventually, after a reasonably successful career lost what may as well equate to some vacation time... Am I the only one who is horrified at this? Okay, so he got more than a slap on the wrist, but what the fuck is this?! That's bullshit! Pardon my linguistics, but my horror at this injustice leaves me short for words. The only restitution that would make this even marginally okay is if the prosecutor/judge had been required to: - House the convicted man. - Set him up with training that would allow the convicted to re-integrate meaningfully into today's society. - Assist the man to find meaningful and gainful employment. - Set him up with a pension plan that would have been equivalent to see him through retirement. - Set him up for success in the manner in which he would have been able to provide for himself had he been a free man. - Feed him, clothe him and pay his utility bills until such a time as his income would allow him to successfully stand on his own two feet. Even then, he owes this man 25 years of his service to make up for what was taken from him. If that bankrupts his accuser, so be it.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Prepare to be twice as angry! /s Ken Anderson spent only five days in jail. http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-released-from-williamson-county-jail/nbtKN/ http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-releas... >Am I the only one who is horrified at this? No.
- balabaster 11y ago
  I don't even know what to say about that... I'm speechless.
- bsenftner 11y ago
  I "love" how Huffpost frames this as "meaningful punishment" as if saying so makes that farce acceptable. I'm with the OP of this thread, that judge owes this man 25 years.

kabdib 11y ago

A slap on the wrist. The prosecutor should have gone to jail for MUCH longer.

vaadu 11y ago

Anderson should get life without parole. A message needs to be sent to government officials that abuse there powers. Taking 25 years from this innocent man is just the tip of the iceberg. He also took 25 years from his relatives. And this is probably not an isolated incident for him.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

known 11y ago

"Diverse society will fail" --Putnam; Let black Police deal with black Culprits; http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...

MaxFrax 11y ago

cool, this is really interesting

rayiner 11y ago

I think we need to punish prosecutorial misconduct more aggressively. That said, you can better understand the status quo if you think of the criminal justice system in terms of interconnected problems. First problem: making sure prosecutors are held personally liable for the X% of convictions that are wrongful and arise from prosecutorial misconduct. Second problem: ensuring that people are freed for the Y% of convictions that are wrongful and don't result from misconduct. Third problem: ensuring that the system can function to uphold the (100 - Y - X)% of convictions that are not wrongful. The fact of the matter is that Y is a small number. And X is a much smaller number than that. Yet, the (100 - Y - X)% of convicts who are really guilty have no less incentive to appeal or sue for misconduct than the X% of people who have a valid case. Consequently, the justice system is awash in frivolous appeals and habeas petitions. If it was just an issue of holding prosecutors liable in X% of cases, then this would be a much easier problem. But you have to do that without giving the (100 - Y - X)% of the justly-convicted a powerful tool to harass and abuse prosecutors who engaged in no wrongdoing. That makes the problem much harder.

Tloewald 11y ago
For capital cases the number of faulty convictions is disturbingly high -- 4.1% according to a widely reported study. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-s...
mr_luc 11y ago
The system doesn't have enough capacity to deal with the frivolous appeals and habeas corpus petitions? Gee, that's too bad. If only there was something the justice system could do to reduce the number of people going into this pipeline! Well, I'll let you go, Justice System -- I see you found a dude with a few grams of acid paper, which I think we can all agree makes him basically El Chapo.
- rayiner 11y ago
  The justice system can and does handle all those appeals and habeas petitions. But there is a difference between giving people a chance to prove their innocence, and making it easier for them to try and have prosecutors imprisoned for misconduct. And reducing the number of cases would not change the calculus. If you had fewer convicts you'd need fewer prosecutors, but the ratios for each prosecutor would not change. The basic problem is that if you make it easier for 1 person to hold the prosecutor accountable for actual misconduct, you make it easier for 20-30 validly convicted people to harass prosecutors who did nothing wrong.

jccc 11y ago

I really, really appreciate this accountability (such as it is), but the moral standard people are seeing here is too high. The convicted man's guilt or innocence should not matter at all when judging the conduct of the prosecutor.

davidgerard 11y ago

2013

maxxxxx 11y ago

I don't understand why the punishment is not much tougher. People like prosecutors, cops and judges are entrusted by society with power over people's lives. Illegal behavior in such a role should be viewed much more severely. A government can't work if it doesn't operate to the highest standards.

mdpopescu 11y ago
You need to read Systemantics. The purpose of the government is not to help you.

hawleyal 11y ago

5 days for 25 years, seems legit

xacaxulu 11y ago

Equal time served should be the punishment here. That would act as a deterrent to such malicious behaviour in the future.

GPGPU 11y ago

Didn't Mike Nifong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong go to jail for wrongfully _prosecuting_ those Duke Lacrosse players? I didn't understand the title because only a Judge and/or Jury can convict people.

joesmo 11y ago

10 days in jail? How about start with 25 years and then work your way up from there? That'd be justice, but in the US that won't happen. We can always hope he gets murdered in jail though, but they'll probably put him in solitary. I'm still hoping though ...

maskedinvader 11y ago

this was really really depressing to read. Feel bad for the man and I hope the prosecutor suffers the rest of his days

vincentleeuwen 11y ago

Wow. 10 days vs 25 years. This seems like real justice...

akshat_h 11y ago

Not sure if this has been raised somewhere else in this thread, but if prosecutor didn't disclose evidence, did the defense also not know about the evidence, considering it was the child of the accused. Is the balance of power in favor of prosecution? Also, now that the the accused in the case has been declared not guilty, will there be an investigation into who actually committed the murder?

aagha 11y ago

Whew! Thank goodness he got that community service time and 10 days in jail for ruining a man's life for 25 years!