Man Gets $20 Million Settlement for Wrongful Conviction After 20 Years In Jail

[MadImmortalMan]

If it's the agents of the people who wrongly ruin his life, then it falls to the people to pay restitution, I suppose.

[Razgovory]

I get it now.  [Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free"] is not "it', it is "that."

[Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free"] is what [any discussion of public spending??] always comes back to, isn't it Yi?

I think this is what you were trying to communicate.

Which is totally awesome as a put down, but didn't have a whole lot to do with the post you quoted.

And to directly answer your rather byzantine and convoluted question, no, I don't the issue of compensating the victims of government wrongdoing has anything at all to do with [other people getting money from taxation for free].

How charitable of you.

[Admiral Yi]

That's the kind of guy I am.

[LaCroix]

Confessions.  Multiple.  Neither were particularly persuasive, apparently, and neither had been obtained in any real voluntary sense, it would appear, but two confessions looks real bad right on the surface.

The real problem here was that the same judge oversaw all three trials, in spite of getting spanked for his rulings in one and vacating the second because of the countervailing DNA evidence.  It does seem to me like he was out to oversee a conviction, come what may.  When judges show such bias in the a first trial, they should be recused from any further participation.

barrister would be a better person to ask about the inner workings of a prosecutor's office, but this prosecutor's office thought the guy was guilty for whatever reason. after that, they took the evidence available and made a case around it. they won.

iirc, whether confessions are voluntary depends on police actions, not the person. if the police brutally interrogate a suspect, and the guy confesses as a result, then it could be an involuntary confession. if the guy freely confesses but is insane, that's a voluntary confession.

is there evidence of judicial bias, though? remands often happen. i assume had there been a real issue of bias, that would have been an issue on appeal.

Wait Yi is a libertarian?

i think it has more to do with fairness. this guy gets $20 million. what about the next guy. why does this guy get $20 million for 20 years? shouldn't the guys who get one day in jail get $1,500?

[Admiral Yi]

Why do people think I'm against this guy getting his 20 million?  I said not every single mistake by government should be compensated.

[grumbler]

barrister would be a better person to ask about the inner workings of a prosecutor's office, but this prosecutor's office thought the guy was guilty for whatever reason. after that, they took the evidence available and made a case around it. they won.

They "won" (in the sense that they got a conviction, not in the sense that they did their jobs well and were rewarded for it) by ignoring exculpatory evidence and seeking a conviction that even a small amount of common sense and dispassionate analysis would have told them was going to be bogus. 

For instance, the confession they were using had the guy admitting that he raped and killed the girl.  When the DNA evidence shows that this was impossible (because the semen wasn't his), the prosecutor's didn't stop and think that, since their only real evidence was self-obviously bogus, maybe they should re-consider the wisdom of trying to convict this guy.  Instead, they simply ignored the impossibilities and used the rest.  Just like the whole ankle bracelet thing.  I don't know if it was malice, lack of intelligence, or just inability to consider his job as a public duty, but the prosecutor here clearly wasn't serving the public interest.

is there evidence of judicial bias, though? remands often happen. i assume had there been a real issue of bias, that would have been an issue on appeal.

The judge did get his rulings overturned on appeal, but then was given jurisdiction to take two additional swings at the guy.  He refused to allow the defense to use arguments that would have challenged the prosecution's claims that the confessions contained elements of evidence unknown at the time of the confessions (and remember, that was the only single element to the prosecution's case that provided any positive evidence of guilt) and continued to allow as evidence the confession that had huge holes in it, had he simply allowed the defense to point them out. 

[grumbler]

Why do people think I'm against this guy getting his 20 million?  I said not every single mistake by government should be compensated.

Why shouldn't the public be compensated for harm caused by government mistakes, though?  They get compensated for harm caused by non-government actors.

if you are talking about punitive rather than compensatory damages, I'll agree.  I think punitive damages against governments (as opposed to individuals acting with malice) is dumb, since those who make the decisions are not those paying.

[DontSayBanana]

as your article says, the involuntary confession and denial of defense claims weren't decided either way. so, there's nothing but allegations there. doesn't sound like there's much for prosecutorial misconduct. they twisted evidence too much. gee.

it seems like the police didn't do anything wrong. so, looks like the government gave the guy a free $20 million (based off limited info).

How in the hell does two involuntary confessions during a psychotic break equate to "the police didn't do anything wrong?"

I'll agree the prosecutorial angle could have initially resulted from a bona fide error in not immediately making the connection that the guy was on ankle monitoring, but once they knew about it, they absolutely had a duty to communicate that information in a timely fashion.

EDIT: I compared this to Michael Morton, but that was a screwup.  Morton was sentenced for contempt of court when the judge ordered him to release the evidence; which is completely different from what happened here.  I apologize.

[The Brain]

Everyone in law enforcement should have 4 simple directives:

1. Serve the public trust.
2. Protect the innocent.
3. Uphold the law.

[DontSayBanana]

Everyone in law enforcement should have 4 simple directives:

1. Serve the public trust.
2. Protect the innocent.
3. Uphold the law.

We could put all the police forces in the country into receivership and put Cyberdyne in charge of them all.

[crazy canuck]

Why do people think I'm against this guy getting his 20 million?  I said not every single mistake by government should be compensated.

Why shouldn't the public be compensated for harm caused by government mistakes, though?  They get compensated for harm caused by non-government actors.

if you are talking about punitive rather than compensatory damages, I'll agree.  I think punitive damages against governments (as opposed to individuals acting with malice) is dumb, since those who make the decisions are not those paying.

It depends on what is considered a mistake.  One of the ways to think about this are policy decisions vs operational decisions.

Example 1: As a policy the state decides that it can only spend x on road improvements which would make roads safer, the budget is spent as dictated by the policy but some road improvements are not made because of the budget limitation.  An accident occurs on the section of road that was not improved causing injuring and death. 

Example 2: A budget provides funding to clear hazards from a road but the governmental department responsible for doing so doesn't do it properly.  An accident occurs on that section of road causing injury and death.


It used to be fairly clear cut that the state would not be liable in example 1 but would be in example 2.  However that distinction is eroding somewhat and courts are finding liability in areas that might more properly be characterized as issues involving allocation of resources.

[Martinus]

The examples made by CC are more borderline/grey area - however if the mistake involves the government taking a coercive action against an individual, that later proves to be baseless, then I believe it is equitable for such individual to be compensated for his or her harm caused by such an action, even if the government's officials did not break law or acted in a culpable manner (including, through negligence).

I agree with grumbler that this is different, of course, from a punitive action - but in case of purely restitutory liability, the basis for the government's liability should be objective (i.e. the government is liable if someone suffers harm and that harm is a natural consequence of the government's coervice action that was objectively wrong).

[Martinus]

Everyone in law enforcement should have 4 simple directives:

1. Serve the public trust.
2. Protect the innocent.
3. Uphold the law.

4. Learn maths?

[Admiral Yi]

How in the hell does two involuntary confessions during a psychotic break equate to "the police didn't do anything wrong?"

As lacroix already pointed out, you're treating allegations as facts.

[crazy canuck]

The examples made by CC are more borderline/grey area - however if the mistake involves the government taking a coercive action against an individual, that later proves to be baseless, then I believe it is equitable for such individual to be compensated for his or her harm caused by such an action, even if the government's officials did not break law or acted in a culpable manner (including, through negligence).

A police officer arrests you because you match the description of a suspect based on what is honestly believed to be reliable information.  After questioning it turns out the information was inaccurate and you are released from custody.  During the time you were in custody you missed an important meeting costing you untold riches.  Should the state compensate you?