3 ms·

Let’s put it this way, even though they had a full video confession it made it to trial…

by kasey_junk 4y ago

George83728 4y ago
If the accused wants to plead innocent even after confessing, isn't that their right? They're entitled to a trial.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  Potentially. Confessing to a 5-0 during an interrogation is different from entering a plea of guilty or not guilty. But given that you just confessed guilt, a not guilty plea is going to raise eyebrows and potentially end badly.
overthrow 4y ago
Police often manipulate or coerce people into making false confessions. 29% of DNA exonerations in the US involved a false confession. https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/ https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-...
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Hence being bad at their jobs
- giardini 4y ago
  This! A friend, A former police officer, said the most astonishing thing he learned as a rookie was how easily some people would confess to crimes they could not possibly have committed. Such persons were usually not very bright and, after hours of interrogation, could be convinced that they had indeed done a bad deed.
gamblor956 4y ago
It seems like you might have very unrealistic expectations for the criminal justice system. Defendants are constitutionally entitled to a jury trial. Even if they were caught on 4k video, with their face fully identifiable, their fingerprints all over the blood scene, and they walk straight into a police station afterwards to confess. A defense lawyer with a client who confessed on video has an extremely difficult job; they must try to present a credible case while also not suborning perjury or violating ethical rules. Very frequently, they're not going to have a "logical" case; they're simply trying to poke whatever holes they can in the prosecution's case...because the Defense is not constitutionally required to prove anything (unless they're attempting to prove an affirmative defense, and if they were you'd know because the judge would explicitly tell you). On the other hand, if the prosecutor and the police and the forensics guys were all as incompetent as you claim, the defense might have gone to trial despite the taped confession because there was a chance they could prevail with a jury if the prosecution messed up presenting the case. I won most of my jury trials because the prosecution messed up.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  Your last paragraph was my point. The incompetence of the investigation left a chance at trial even though there was a taped confession. If the investigation had been just workmanlike or followed basic protocols I cant imagine any defense attorney would have wanted to take it to trial. Though perhaps they still didn’t want that but their client demanded it. I of course couldn’t know that.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - tptacek 4y ago
      He was there at this trial, and served on the jury. The entire affair is an abstraction to you. You can't high-horse this; it doesn't even make sense to.

Let’s put it this way, even though they had a full video confession it made it to trial…

George83728 4y ago

If the accused wants to plead innocent even after confessing, isn't that their right? They're entitled to a trial.

red-iron-pine 4y ago
Potentially. Confessing to a 5-0 during an interrogation is different from entering a plea of guilty or not guilty. But given that you just confessed guilt, a not guilty plea is going to raise eyebrows and potentially end badly.

overthrow 4y ago

Police often manipulate or coerce people into making false confessions. 29% of DNA exonerations in the US involved a false confession. https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/ https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-...

kevviiinn 4y ago
Hence being bad at their jobs
giardini 4y ago
This! A friend, A former police officer, said the most astonishing thing he learned as a rookie was how easily some people would confess to crimes they could not possibly have committed. Such persons were usually not very bright and, after hours of interrogation, could be convinced that they had indeed done a bad deed.

gamblor956 4y ago

It seems like you might have very unrealistic expectations for the criminal justice system. Defendants are constitutionally entitled to a jury trial. Even if they were caught on 4k video, with their face fully identifiable, their fingerprints all over the blood scene, and they walk straight into a police station afterwards to confess. A defense lawyer with a client who confessed on video has an extremely difficult job; they must try to present a credible case while also not suborning perjury or violating ethical rules. Very frequently, they're not going to have a "logical" case; they're simply trying to poke whatever holes they can in the prosecution's case...because the Defense is not constitutionally required to prove anything (unless they're attempting to prove an affirmative defense, and if they were you'd know because the judge would explicitly tell you). On the other hand, if the prosecutor and the police and the forensics guys were all as incompetent as you claim, the defense might have gone to trial despite the taped confession because there was a chance they could prevail with a jury if the prosecution messed up presenting the case. I won most of my jury trials because the prosecution messed up.

kasey_junk 4y ago
Your last paragraph was my point. The incompetence of the investigation left a chance at trial even though there was a taped confession. If the investigation had been just workmanlike or followed basic protocols I cant imagine any defense attorney would have wanted to take it to trial. Though perhaps they still didn’t want that but their client demanded it. I of course couldn’t know that.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - tptacek 4y ago
    He was there at this trial, and served on the jury. The entire affair is an abstraction to you. You can't high-horse this; it doesn't even make sense to.