4 ms·

So, when a prosecutor / detective blatantly ignores contradictory evidence and end up putting an innocent person in jail, why do we not treat that as a crime?

So, when a prosecutor / detective blatantly ignores contradictory evidence and end up putting an innocent person in jail, why do we not treat that as a crime? There are a number of obvious cynical answers to this, but seriously, does anyone know of prosecutors / detectives that have been charged in cases like this?

rayiner 13y ago
It does happen, but its rare. You have to remember that the whole criminal justice system operates in the context of large numbers of guilty as fuck defendants who file endless appeals and petitions to get rock solid cases overturned. That's the rule, cases like Daniel's are the exception. So prosecutors and investigators have broad immunities, with high bars for overcoming them. Otherwise, they'd be constantly subject to litigation. Remember, this reporter got hundreds of letters from convicts and followed up on this one. Remember also that in real life, the facts aren't laid out for you like a newspaper article.
- cobrausn 13y ago
  When a review of a case finds that the prosecution knowingly withheld evidence that actually proved the client could not have been there, the facts pretty much speak for themselves. This should have led directly to criminal charges.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You're focusing on one case instead of looking at the whole thing as a system. What's the standard of proof for establishing that it's knowing and not inadvertent? Who "finds" that the prosecution knowingly withheld evidence? You can't have official legal "findings" until you institute a law suit, so what's the bar for instituting a law suit and how do you set that bar high enough to keep prosecutors from being inundated with lawsuits by every criminal they put in jail? It's a cost-benefit analysis. What's the benefit of reducing the error rate of the system versus how much does it cost to achieve that reduction?
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      The whole thing as a system requires it to 'police' itself internally, because we don't have enough information to be able to do it effectively (i.e., file lawsuits with 100% accuracy). I'll say it again - when a case review finds withheld evidence that led to a wrongful conviction, this should lead to immediate criminal charges from within the system - no lawsuit should have to be filed from the victim. If it was unintentional, let the jury decide. This is how the rest of us get treated. I disagree that this is simple cost-benefit analysis. This is about the integrity and trustworthiness of the system, and it's not worth writing off a whole bunch of people to make the wheels squeak less and clean up easier when they grind up an innocent person's life. It needs pressure from the outside to reform itself from within. EDIT: I guess I'm asking for the justice system to do a better job policing itself and start treating transgressions like this as major offenses that threaten the system itself. But considering human nature, this is unlikely. There is an interesting book called 'Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)' which has a chapter dedicated to this kind of behavior in the justice system.
    - bcoates 13y ago
      Exactly, sending a handful of unlucky prosecutors to jail for a few decades pour encourager les autres would clearly be worth it on the whole to protect the integrity of the system.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        If that was the cost it would be peachy. What we're talking, instead, is about no prosecutor ever being able to do their job because they'd be constantly flooded by litigation claiming that this or the other thing amounted to prosecutorial misconduct.
        6d0debc071 13y ago
        Could you just make it contingent on the person who was imprisoned making a successful appeal - which I'd imagine would be their initial priority anyway? You get off for something that you were put away for, then you can sue for misconduct....
shabble 13y ago
I came across a long writeup on the murder conviction of Michael Morton[1] which relied heavily on withholding evidence from the defence, and lying about it under oath. Upon his exoneration (after serving ~25 years), an inquiry was held, and the prosecutor is currently facing criminal charges[2] In what might be the most offensive part, his defense appears to be immunity under the Statute of Limitations, since it was back in 1986. Quite a risky defense, I imagine, given (AIUI) the exemption for "Fraud upon the Court", and the perverse incentive to ensure the wrongly imprisoned stay there long enough that you are immune to criminal charges. Civil redress is presumably available, but I can't imagine what 10-20 years of wrongful imprisonment is worth[3] that doesn't lead to immediate bankruptcy. [1] Note: LONG. http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one?fullpage=1 http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one?full... & http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-two http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-two [2] http://m.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-court-of-inquiry-resumes/nXRLm/ http://m.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-court-of... [3] $80k/year for Texas, according to the end of article in [1], but presumably from the state itself, rather than the individuals involved.

rayiner 13y ago

It does happen, but its rare. You have to remember that the whole criminal justice system operates in the context of large numbers of guilty as fuck defendants who file endless appeals and petitions to get rock solid cases overturned. That's the rule, cases like Daniel's are the exception. So prosecutors and investigators have broad immunities, with high bars for overcoming them. Otherwise, they'd be constantly subject to litigation. Remember, this reporter got hundreds of letters from convicts and followed up on this one. Remember also that in real life, the facts aren't laid out for you like a newspaper article.

cobrausn 13y ago
When a review of a case finds that the prosecution knowingly withheld evidence that actually proved the client could not have been there, the facts pretty much speak for themselves. This should have led directly to criminal charges.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You're focusing on one case instead of looking at the whole thing as a system. What's the standard of proof for establishing that it's knowing and not inadvertent? Who "finds" that the prosecution knowingly withheld evidence? You can't have official legal "findings" until you institute a law suit, so what's the bar for instituting a law suit and how do you set that bar high enough to keep prosecutors from being inundated with lawsuits by every criminal they put in jail? It's a cost-benefit analysis. What's the benefit of reducing the error rate of the system versus how much does it cost to achieve that reduction?
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    The whole thing as a system requires it to 'police' itself internally, because we don't have enough information to be able to do it effectively (i.e., file lawsuits with 100% accuracy). I'll say it again - when a case review finds withheld evidence that led to a wrongful conviction, this should lead to immediate criminal charges from within the system - no lawsuit should have to be filed from the victim. If it was unintentional, let the jury decide. This is how the rest of us get treated. I disagree that this is simple cost-benefit analysis. This is about the integrity and trustworthiness of the system, and it's not worth writing off a whole bunch of people to make the wheels squeak less and clean up easier when they grind up an innocent person's life. It needs pressure from the outside to reform itself from within. EDIT: I guess I'm asking for the justice system to do a better job policing itself and start treating transgressions like this as major offenses that threaten the system itself. But considering human nature, this is unlikely. There is an interesting book called 'Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)' which has a chapter dedicated to this kind of behavior in the justice system.
  - bcoates 13y ago
    Exactly, sending a handful of unlucky prosecutors to jail for a few decades pour encourager les autres would clearly be worth it on the whole to protect the integrity of the system.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      If that was the cost it would be peachy. What we're talking, instead, is about no prosecutor ever being able to do their job because they'd be constantly flooded by litigation claiming that this or the other thing amounted to prosecutorial misconduct.
      - 6d0debc071 13y ago
        Could you just make it contingent on the person who was imprisoned making a successful appeal - which I'd imagine would be their initial priority anyway? You get off for something that you were put away for, then you can sue for misconduct....

shabble 13y ago

I came across a long writeup on the murder conviction of Michael Morton[1] which relied heavily on withholding evidence from the defence, and lying about it under oath. Upon his exoneration (after serving ~25 years), an inquiry was held, and the prosecutor is currently facing criminal charges[2] In what might be the most offensive part, his defense appears to be immunity under the Statute of Limitations, since it was back in 1986. Quite a risky defense, I imagine, given (AIUI) the exemption for "Fraud upon the Court", and the perverse incentive to ensure the wrongly imprisoned stay there long enough that you are immune to criminal charges. Civil redress is presumably available, but I can't imagine what 10-20 years of wrongful imprisonment is worth[3] that doesn't lead to immediate bankruptcy. [1] Note: LONG. http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one?fullpage=1 http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one?full... & http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-two http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-two [2] http://m.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-court-of-inquiry-resumes/nXRLm/ http://m.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-court-of... [3] $80k/year for Texas, according to the end of article in [1], but presumably from the state itself, rather than the individuals involved.