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

[Ed Anger]

MOVIES? I SPEND ALL DAY HARVESTING POTATOES. BIG STRONG POLISH POTATOES.

[grumbler]

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.

I'm not sure what your argument is, here.  The prosecution wasn't trying to show that any man-made device can malfunction; that's axiomatic.  They were trying to show that the jury could believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rivera's cuff had, indeed, malfunctioned.  The cuff they showed as potentially faulty was, as I understand it, a different type than the one on Rivera, but the defense was prohibited from demonstrating this.  No one seems to understand why the judge ruled this way.

[crazy canuck]

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.

The logic of previous posters is that we require private actors to compensate for their wrongdoing so why not the state.  There is nothing objectionable about that.   The problem with Marti's position is that, with some very rare exceptions, we do not hold private actors to a strict liability standard because that would make most activities too risky from the perspective of potential liability.  The same holds true for public actors.   

[dps]

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.

I'm not sure what your argument is, here.  The prosecution wasn't trying to show that any man-made device can malfunction; that's axiomatic.  They were trying to show that the jury could believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rivera's cuff had, indeed, malfunctioned.  The cuff they showed as potentially faulty was, as I understand it, a different type than the one on Rivera, but the defense was prohibited from demonstrating this.  No one seems to understand why the judge ruled this way.

IMO, it wouldn't have mattered if the cuff the prosecution showed to be faulty was the same type as the one on the defendant, it would have to be the exact, particular cuff he was wearing to be relevant.  Forget the judge;  if I'm on the jury, if the prosecution couldn't show that Rivera's monitor had malfunctioned, then that would be enough in my mind to create reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

Of course, the rules we use nowadays for jury selection seem designed to try to make sure that juries are made up of idiots, so I don't suppose that we can expect jurors to use common sense.  Especially since the legal system seems to be also trying to ban common sense from the courtroom.

[grumbler]

IMO, it wouldn't have mattered if the cuff the prosecution showed to be faulty was the same type as the one on the defendant, it would have to be the exact, particular cuff he was wearing to be relevant.  Forget the judge;  if I'm on the jury, if the prosecution couldn't show that Rivera's monitor had malfunctioned, then that would be enough in my mind to create reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

Of course, the rules we use nowadays for jury selection seem designed to try to make sure that juries are made up of idiots, so I don't suppose that we can expect jurors to use common sense.  Especially since the legal system seems to be also trying to ban common sense from the courtroom.

By definition, the jurors in this case weren't "rational" by the standards of the Illinois court system - they convicted under circumstances the appeals court found impossible for any "rational trier of fact."  I think that the reason is the one you point out: the rules for jury selection appear designed to root out rational jurors and leave only the idiots.