4 ms·

This really highlights the unreliability of eyewitness testimony (well, and corruption in the DA's office and police department, but that's another story). Per

This really highlights the unreliability of eyewitness testimony (well, and corruption in the DA's office and police department, but that's another story). Perhaps one upside to the coming ubiquity of cameras is an increased availability in actual evidence for crimes.

joe_the_user 16y ago
Well, While unbiased eye-witness testimony might be well unreliable, the story mostly shows DA and corruption. He got out of jail by showing the people who testified against him were quite biased indeed - They were "motivated" to act by police and DA threats and the DA had systematically lied concerning this process... It's also rather heart-rending to read how he had to engage in fraud to discover the truth and naturally this fraud was then held against his appeal....
- shrikant 16y ago
  [Interestingly] The judge Robert Holdman who shot down his appeal because of this fraud, has a (IMHO) history of being overly harsh. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZrFEGVEd8DsJ:www.judicialreports.com/2007/12/post_82.php http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZrFEGVE... (search for 'Holdman' on that page)
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    When I reading the story, that part was just screaming at me. In my limited knowledge of the law, the guy got incredibly lucky in having illegally gain evidence accepted in a court of law (from a defendant). It's mind blowing to think about being in a situation where the only way to get justice is to break the law. It sounds good in action movie but in real life, it's appalling...
    - yxhuvud 16y ago
      Being a foreigner, it's mind blowing that how evidence is procured matter. Evidence is evidence. If there were illegal actions while collecting it, then those actions should be prosecuted, but evidence is still evidence and should be used.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - eru 16y ago
        As far as I know the legal system, in say, Germany doesn't recognize illegally gained evidence either.
        joe_the_user 16y ago
        The story is slightly different in each country. "In Germany, statutory law mandates exclusion of statements obtained from suspects or witnesses by force, deception, hypnosis, or similar illicit methods of interrogation" http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparative-Aspects-Control-police.html#ixzz199nYdqIC http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparativ... But "Because deterrence of police misconduct is not the rationale for exclusion of evidence, German courts tend to admit evidence obtained through illegal searches "http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparative-Aspects-Control-police.html#ixzz199noHnXO http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparativ...
      - jarin 16y ago
        In the US, we (as a collective) hold sacrosanct the rights of a person against illegal searches and self-incrimination, as well as the 'innocent until proven guilty' doctrine. The idea is that it's better to let a criminal go than to convict an innocent person. Disallowing illegally obtained evidence also has the effect of discouraging the police from illegally obtaining evidence in the first place and reducing opportunities for corruption. Of course, in this case it didn't work out so well, but you would see a lot more stories like this if sources of evidence weren't important.
        16y ago

joe_the_user 16y ago

Well, While unbiased eye-witness testimony might be well unreliable, the story mostly shows DA and corruption. He got out of jail by showing the people who testified against him were quite biased indeed - They were "motivated" to act by police and DA threats and the DA had systematically lied concerning this process... It's also rather heart-rending to read how he had to engage in fraud to discover the truth and naturally this fraud was then held against his appeal....

shrikant 16y ago
[Interestingly] The judge Robert Holdman who shot down his appeal because of this fraud, has a (IMHO) history of being overly harsh. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZrFEGVEd8DsJ:www.judicialreports.com/2007/12/post_82.php http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZrFEGVE... (search for 'Holdman' on that page)
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  When I reading the story, that part was just screaming at me. In my limited knowledge of the law, the guy got incredibly lucky in having illegally gain evidence accepted in a court of law (from a defendant). It's mind blowing to think about being in a situation where the only way to get justice is to break the law. It sounds good in action movie but in real life, it's appalling...
  - yxhuvud 16y ago
    Being a foreigner, it's mind blowing that how evidence is procured matter. Evidence is evidence. If there were illegal actions while collecting it, then those actions should be prosecuted, but evidence is still evidence and should be used.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - eru 16y ago
      As far as I know the legal system, in say, Germany doesn't recognize illegally gained evidence either.
      - joe_the_user 16y ago
        The story is slightly different in each country. "In Germany, statutory law mandates exclusion of statements obtained from suspects or witnesses by force, deception, hypnosis, or similar illicit methods of interrogation" http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparative-Aspects-Control-police.html#ixzz199nYdqIC http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparativ... But "Because deterrence of police misconduct is not the rationale for exclusion of evidence, German courts tend to admit evidence obtained through illegal searches "http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparative-Aspects-Control-police.html#ixzz199noHnXO http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparativ...
    - jarin 16y ago
      In the US, we (as a collective) hold sacrosanct the rights of a person against illegal searches and self-incrimination, as well as the 'innocent until proven guilty' doctrine. The idea is that it's better to let a criminal go than to convict an innocent person. Disallowing illegally obtained evidence also has the effect of discouraging the police from illegally obtaining evidence in the first place and reducing opportunities for corruption. Of course, in this case it didn't work out so well, but you would see a lot more stories like this if sources of evidence weren't important.
      - 16y ago