Innocence is not enough to get you out of prison.

[grumbler]

lots of people recant or question their prior conclusions. recantations don't prove anything conclusively. also, story is odd because there doesn't appear to have ever been an appeal. and, the article isn't exactly honest because it omits the guy's public exposure conviction. so, who knows what else the prosecutor had on the guy.

while eyewitness testimony is heavily flawed, criminal defendants can (and do) call expert witnesses to defang eyewitness testimony.

This is Slate, not a newspaper, and a blog, not a news story.  Of course the article is slanted and ignores evidence contrary to its position.

Still the quotes indicate that the author is on to something.

[Ideologue]

lots of people recant or question their prior conclusions. recantations don't prove anything conclusively. also, story is odd because there doesn't appear to have ever been an appeal. and, the article isn't exactly honest because it omits the guy's public exposure conviction.

It doesn't.  It mentions it twice.

I also don't know what his grounds for appeal would have been.

Anyway, while a GPS tracking device implanted in his skull would have surely cleared him, I'm a little bothered by the coercion inherent in requiring offenders to admit to guilt at "civil confinement" proceedings that could extend their sentences indefinitely.  I'm sure if I looked, there's plenty of caselaw that finds it's permissible under the Fifth Amendment, and that's the great thing about living in hypocritical, dysfunctional police state.

[The Minsky Moment]

while eyewitness testimony is heavily flawed, criminal defendants can (and do) call expert witnesses to defang eyewitness testimony.

First of all, it is quite common in the US to exclude expert testimony on eyewitness reliability,
Second, most experts charge money for the services, thus putting themselves outside the reach of the majority of criminal defendants.

[Admiral Yi]

You still owe me an explanation on the SC ruling Joan.

[The Minsky Moment]

You still owe me an explanation on the SC ruling Joan.

Which case?

[LaCroix]

It doesn't. It mentions it twice.

article mentions "alcohol-related public indecency," which (imo) is vague.

First of all, it is quite common in the US to exclude expert testimony on eyewitness reliability,
Second, most experts charge money for the services, thus putting themselves outside the reach of the majority of criminal defendants.

that may be true. if it is true, i suspect that's changing with advances in social sciences.

while i'm sure it varies from state to state, public defender offices have funds for expert witnesses (along with investigators, etc.). for the non-poor, while expert witnesses can be very costly, i'd imagine there financial options available. are there many studies that show expert witnesses are outside the reach of the majority of criminal defendants?

[LaCroix]

Still the quotes indicate that the author is on to something.

he very well might be innocent. but, it's such an extreme case that's unlikely to happen very frequently. we can't hold new trials every time a victim recants or an investigator doubts himself about a decades-old investigation. what are ya gonna do but wait for further scientific advances. it's harder to imprison an innocent person today than it was a hundred years ago. a hundred years from now, it'll likely be harder than it is today.

[grumbler]

Still the quotes indicate that the author is on to something.

he very well might be innocent. but, it's such an extreme case that's unlikely to happen very frequently. we can't hold new trials every time a victim recants or an investigator doubts himself about a decades-old investigation. what are ya gonna do but wait for further scientific advances. it's harder to imprison an innocent person today than it was a hundred years ago. a hundred years from now, it'll likely be harder than it is today.

I agree that it is hard to create general rules based on this case, but the evidence in this case about this case seems pretty clearly to indicate that there should be severe doubt about his guilt.  The prosecutor doubts simply show that even the most unjust prosecutors will eventually see their error ij a case this egregious.  Good prosecutors would have ensured that the photo lineup wasn't a photo frameup during the investigation, not years later.

[Admiral Yi]

Which case?

Never mind.  Turn out the original source of Timrage was a dissent, not a ruling. 

[The Minsky Moment]

while i'm sure it varies from state to state, public defender offices have funds for expert witnesses (along with investigators, etc.). for the non-poor, while expert witnesses can be very costly, i'd imagine there financial options available. are there many studies that show expert witnesses are outside the reach of the majority of criminal defendants?

Fed defenders has a limited budget for experts, and got slammed by cuts in the budget mess.  Not sure, but I would guess that in the states it is worse. 

[crazy canuck]

Still the quotes indicate that the author is on to something.

he very well might be innocent. but, it's such an extreme case that's unlikely to happen very frequently. we can't hold new trials every time a victim recants or an investigator doubts himself about a decades-old investigation. what are ya gonna do but wait for further scientific advances. it's harder to imprison an innocent person today than it was a hundred years ago. a hundred years from now, it'll likely be harder than it is today.

I am not so sure about your underlying assumption that it is harder to imprison an innocent person.  Most defendants do not have the financial resources to retain independent expert witnesses who may challenge the scientific evidence produced by the prosecution.   Add to that the fact that many prosecutors in the US are elected and rely on impressive conviction rates as part of the reason why they should remain in office; judges who are elected and rely on hard on crime election platforms to remain in office; and a poorly funded legal aid/public defenders offices.  I don't share your confidence that innocent people are rarely convicted.

[LaCroix]

I am not so sure about your underlying assumption that it is harder to imprison an innocent person.  Most defendants do not have the financial resources to retain independent expert witnesses who may challenge the scientific evidence produced by the prosecution.   Add to that the fact that many prosecutors in the US are elected and rely on impressive conviction rates as part of the reason why they should remain in office; judges who are elected and rely on hard on crime election platforms to remain in office; and a poorly funded legal aid/public defenders offices.  I don't share your confidence that innocent people are rarely convicted.

like before, i seriously question the assertion that "most" or "the majority" of criminal defendants lack financial resources to retain expert witnesses. a man may lose his home for effective legal counsel, but that option is available. if the option isn't available, public defenders are provided. a public defender overseeing a case where the only evidence against a criminal defendant is a single eyewitness is presumably going to receive additional funding. PD offices might not money to throw around, but that doesn't mean they can't allocate funding toward truly winnable cases. they want to win just as much as prosecutors.

as you said, prosecutors are elected and a factor in their election is success. a prosecutor that goes after innocent people is not going to be as successful. on average, there is simply less evidence to convict innocent people compared to guilty people. that's kinda the nature of the game. sometimes, an innocent person will have evidence stacked against him, but there's no evidence that innocent people are frequently convicted for crimes they did not commit. instead, we have extreme cases that are picked up by journalists and used as evidence for their assertions that there's something rotten with the whole system. without more, i don't buy it.

having worked for an appointed judge and an elected judge, the only difference i've seen is that elected judges are little more careful in how they word their orders. from my experience, i've seen little difference in the actual legal analysis. honestly, i don't think there's much of a difference between elected and appointed judges. they both work within the their particular system (election route v. appointment route, whatever that entails) and receive their positions based on politics. the average elected judge does not base his decisions on securing convictions so that he can remain elected because that's a surefire way to get eventually sanctioned.

[crazy canuck]

If a prosecutor convicts an innocent person, who would ever know that fact?  Particularly if your view holds sway that convictions of the innocent is so rare that we need not devote funds to right past wrongs.

[LaCroix]

If a prosecutor convicts an innocent person, who would ever know that fact?  Particularly if your view holds sway that convictions of the innocent is so rare that we need not devote funds to right past wrongs.

there are organizations that seek to find convicted innocents as the article(s?) in this thread indicate. i'm satisfied with the ability of those organizations to do their job. i'd also support granting federal aid for those organizations. beyond that, eh.

[crazy canuck]

If a prosecutor convicts an innocent person, who would ever know that fact?  Particularly if your view holds sway that convictions of the innocent is so rare that we need not devote funds to right past wrongs.

there are organizations that seek to find convicted innocents as the article(s?) in this thread indicate. i'm satisfied with the ability of those organizations to do their job. i'd also support granting federal aid for those organizations. beyond that, eh.

Probably better to properly fund legal aid so that they can mount a proper defense in the first place.