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

[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).

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?

Yes.

Although I don't know if you should be compensated for the "untold riches" - as I said, the harm should be the normal consequence, and this probably does not meet that criteria. But likewise you should not be compensated for the "untold riches" if the cop arrested you illegally - so that point of your example is a red herring.

[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?

Yes.

Your tax bill will go up significantly if state actors, acting honestly, can be found liable absent a finding of negligence.

[Martinus]

Read the rest of my post.

But that being said I don't think tax concerns should trump concerns over justice.

[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?

Yes.

Although I don't know if you should be compensated for the "untold riches" - as I said, the harm should be the normal consequence, and this probably does not meet that criteria. But likewise you should not be compensated for the "untold riches" if the cop arrested you illegally - so that point of your example is a red herring.

I see you edited your response.

How is my example a Red Herring?  Your position is that people should be compensated for mistakes made by government actors even if the government's officials did not break law or act in a culpable manner (including, through negligence).  My example falls within that scenario.

[crazy canuck]

Read the rest of my post.

But that being said I don't think tax concerns should trump concerns over justice.

You edited your response.  It had been a simple yes....

And I agree that tax concerns should not trump concerns over justice.  But what you propose is not a system of justice but a system of strict liability.  That is not justice.  There is a reason why, as a matter of public policy, we have very few strict liability offences.  Is that not the same in Poland?

[grumbler]

So was he exonerated because of a "highly improbable prosecution theory," or because of new DNA evidence?  I'm a little confused.

Just saw this question so l;ate answer, but he was exonerated because the state's evidence was, on the face of it, insufficient for a reasonable jury to convict.  Once the appeals court (unanimously) concluded that, the rest of the appeal (six more arguments) was moot.

[LaCroix]

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.

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.

decided to look into the case.

(1) re: DNA evidence. the new DNA evidence didn't show it was impossible that the defendant had sexually assaulted the victim, but rather, the sperm belonged to someone else. the defendant had confessed that he hadn't ejaculated. so, government argued the girl could have had sex with the sperm owner before the defendant raped and killed her.

(2) re: monitoring device. government introduced evidence that monitoring devices sometimes malfunction.

timeline:
1993, first trial (convicted) -> appeals
1996, appellate court orders new trial
1998, retried and convicted -> appeals
2001, appellate court affirms conviction
2004, trial court grants defendant a DNA test on sperm found in the girl
2006, trial court accepts defendant's petition for relief from judgment
2009, new trial -> guy gets convicted for a third time.

prosecutors argued theories that were possible but, at least according to the appellate court, not beyond a reasonable doubt. this isn't the craziest thing when you consider that prosecutors probably deal with remands every now and then. more often than not, the guy is probably still guilty. prosecutors are human - they probably knew they had the right guy. so, they created a case from the evidence they had available and got their third conviction. the new exculpatory evidence hurt the government's case, but the new evidence by no means removed the possibility that the guy killed the girl.

for the judge, there was never even a mere allegation of bias. the judge refused to exclude certain expert testimony, yes, but this happens. there are many instances where defendants have possible defenses shut down due to rules of evidence. this judge did, however, allow expert testimony that discussed the defendant's mental health overall, low IQ, and third-grade reading level.

bias is a serious allegation, and the judge appears to have handled this long, drawn out case fairly well.

[grumbler]

decided to look into the case.

(1) re: DNA evidence. the new DNA evidence didn't show it was impossible that the defendant had sexually assaulted the victim, but rather, the sperm belonged to someone else. the defendant had confessed that he hadn't ejaculated. so, government argued the girl could have had sex with the sperm owner before the defendant raped and killed her.

DNA evidence showed that only one man's semen (and it was fresh semen, not from some previous day) was present, and that for Rivera to be the murderer, he couldn't have leaked even any pre-cum during the vaginal or anal rapes, and that someone else had to coincidentally have raped the eleven-year-old earlier that day. 

That sound likely to you?

(2) re: monitoring device. government introduced evidence that monitoring devices sometimes malfunction.

And the defense was not allowed to challenge that evidence, even though in possession of evidence with which to do so.

timeline:
1993, first trial (convicted) -> appeals
1996, appellate court orders new trial
1998, retried and convicted -> appeals
2001, appellate court affirms conviction
2004, trial court grants defendant a DNA test on sperm found in the girl
2006, trial court accepts defendant's petition for relief from judgment
2009, new trial -> guy gets convicted for a third time.

prosecutors argued theories that were possible but, at least according to the appellate court, not beyond a reasonable doubt. this isn't the craziest thing when you consider that prosecutors probably deal with remands every now and then. more often than not, the guy is probably still guilty. prosecutors are human - they probably knew they had the right guy. so, they created a case from the evidence they had available and got their third conviction. the new exculpatory evidence hurt the government's case, but the new evidence by no means removed the possibility that the guy killed the girl.

for the judge, there was never even a mere allegation of bias. the judge refused to exclude certain expert testimony, yes, but this happens. there are many instances where defendants have possible defenses shut down due to rules of evidence. this judge did, however, allow expert testimony that discussed the defendant's mental health overall, low IQ, and third-grade reading level.

bias is a serious allegation, and the judge appears to have handled this long, drawn out case fairly well.

The first conviction was overturned because the judge's rulings didn't allow for a proper defense.  The second was overturned because of the DNA testing that showed that the prosecution's case couldn't stand (they'd need to retcon the crime).  The third was overturned because the appeals court unanimously ruled that the evidence presented at trial was self-evidently insufficient for conviction.  Note that it is supposed to be the trial judge, not the appeals court judge, who is supposed to catch the fact that the prosecution's case is too thin for any reasonable jury to convict on.  Somehow, Stark missed that, just as he had missed justice in the first and second trials. 

It might not be bias.  It might just be stupidity.  But I disagree that Stark handled this well.  The appeals court found that:
(a) "The State's theories distort to an absurd degree the real and undisputed testimony that the sperm was deposited shortly before the victim died" such that "a reasonable fact finder could not credit them beyond a reasonable doubt."  Stark failed to see this himself.
(b) Regarding the snitches, "we find that no reasonable trier of fact could have found the jailhouse informants' testimony credible beyond a reasonable doubt." Stark missed this, too.
(c) regarding the confession, "Because defendant's confession was the only remaining evidence connecting him to the victim's sexual assault and murder, the State was required to present evidence aliunde the confession to prove the offense.  The State failed to provide sufficient independent evidence to corroborate defendant's confession, especially in light of the DNA evidence... the only evidence of defendant's commission of the offense came from the statements that the police prepared for defendant to sign... defendant's conviction was unjustified and cannot stand."  Stark didn't notice.
(d) overall, "After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we hold that no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."  Stark was asleep at the switch; this was his call to make, right at the trial.

The prosecution has a job.  They did theirs poorly, but that is somewhat understandable; they had a stake in getting a conviction, and the quality of their case   was declining, perhaps, slowly enough that they missed the point at which their case became absurd.  It is the judge's job to make sure that cases to weak to win lose.  Instead, we got a trial about which the vastly experienced defense lawyer noted "I do not recall a case in which so many rulings, in my opinion, were wrong."  Well, his opinion, and the unanimous opinion of the appeals court.

If this is a case of justice "fairly well handled," Hod save us from anything less than "extraordinarily well-handled!"

[MadImmortalMan]

How is my example a Red Herring?  Your position is that people should be compensated for mistakes made by government actors even if the government's officials did not break law or act in a culpable manner (including, through negligence).  My example falls within that scenario.

It just means if you're a cop or prosecutor, it's really damn important that you take the responsibility seriously and don't fuck up.

[dps]

(2) re: monitoring device. government introduced evidence that monitoring devices sometimes malfunction.

And the defense was not allowed to challenge that evidence, even though in possession of evidence with which to do so

What possible evidence could believably challenge the fact that devices (be they monitoring devices, automobiles, machine guns, or microwave ovens) sometimes malfunction?  Granted, I think that the state would have needed to show evidence that the particular monitor worn by the defendant had malfunctioned, not merely evidence that such devices can malfunction.  That any man-made device can malfunction should be axiomatic.

[sbr]

(2) re: monitoring device. government introduced evidence that monitoring devices sometimes malfunction.

And the defense was not allowed to challenge that evidence, even though in possession of evidence with which to do so

What possible evidence could believably challenge the fact that devices (be they monitoring devices, automobiles, machine guns, or microwave ovens) sometimes malfunction?  Granted, I think that the state would have needed to show evidence that the particular monitor worn by the defendant had malfunctioned, not merely evidence that such devices can malfunction.  That any man-made device can malfunction should be axiomatic.

The fact that the monitor worked might be evidence.

Also over defense objections, Starck allowed the prosecution to suggest that the electronic home monitoring ankle bracelet Rivera was wearing might have malfunctioned, or that Rivera might somehow have slipped out of it to commit the crime. There was no evidence to support either theory. Rivera's electronic ankle bracelet had functioned properly shortly before and shortly after the crime.

[dps]

(2) re: monitoring device. government introduced evidence that monitoring devices sometimes malfunction.

And the defense was not allowed to challenge that evidence, even though in possession of evidence with which to do so

What possible evidence could believably challenge the fact that devices (be they monitoring devices, automobiles, machine guns, or microwave ovens) sometimes malfunction?  Granted, I think that the state would have needed to show evidence that the particular monitor worn by the defendant had malfunctioned, not merely evidence that such devices can malfunction.  That any man-made device can malfunction should be axiomatic.

The fact that the monitor worked might be evidence.

Also over defense objections, Starck allowed the prosecution to suggest that the electronic home monitoring ankle bracelet Rivera was wearing might have malfunctioned, or that Rivera might somehow have slipped out of it to commit the crime. There was no evidence to support either theory. Rivera's electronic ankle bracelet had functioned properly shortly before and shortly after the crime.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at.  Of course devices can malfunction, but how is that possibly relevant evidence?  What is relevant is evidence that this particular device was or was not properly functioning.

[sbr]

Ok sorry, I guess I skimmed over the last half of your post.  I thought you were looking for the defense to prove a negative, that the monitoring bracelet didn't malfunction.  My bad.

[Tonitrus]

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?

Movie reference fail.

[Ideologue]

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?

Sometimes you are so Eastern European it hurts.