No amount of money could ever be enough to make up for that, but I suppose we have to make an accounting somehow and a million a year is a nice round number.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Man-to-Receive-20-Million-Settlement-for-Wrongful-Conviction-297057831.html
QuoteMan Gets $20 Million Settlement for Wrongful Conviction After 20 Years Behind Bars
Juan Rivera, an Illinois man who spent nearly 20 years in prison for a rape and murder he didn't commit, will receive a $20 million settlement for his years behind bars, setting a new U.S. record for an individual case of wrongful conviction, his attorneys announced Friday.
The settlement equates to about a million dollars for each year he spent behind bars and brings Rivera's case to a close.
"No amount of money could ever sum up to 20 years of prison," Rivera said. "I went through a living hell while I was prison so to say that $20 million is a wonderful thing, of course. You know, I could live more comfortable now, my family can, I can go to college, get my education the way I've always wanted, but I still would prefer my 20 years with my family than $20 million."
Rivera was convicted at the age of 19 in the rape and fatal stabbing of 11-year-old Holly Staker in 1992 and served almost 20 years of a life sentence at Stateville Prison in Joliet, Illinois.
Rivera's conviction was appealed three times, and each time a jury found him guilty
During his last trial, in 2009, advancements in technology allowed investigators to test DNA recovered from Staker's body. The genetic profile recovered from the fingerprints, hair and other evidence collected at the scene of the crime could not be traced back to Rivera, nor was it a complete match of any other profile already in the national database.
The majority of the case prosecutors built against Rivera revolved around a confession he signed. Though he admits to initially lying to investigators about where he was the night of the crime, Rivera argues the confession he signed after a four-day police interrogation was coerced.
In December, 2011 the 2nd District Appellate Court north of Chicago overturned the conviction saying the evidence against Rivera does not go beyond a reasonable doubt. He was released Jan. 6, 2012, a day he declared his new birthday.
"You hope that the $20 million is enough of a disincentive for behavior to change. That's what you hope," said Rivera's attorney Locke Bowman. "You hope that people would rather investigate the case properly, they'd rather pursue appropriate procedures for interrogation, they'd rather handle the evidence the way it's supposed to be handled than face these kinds of consequences."
Rivera, now 42, says he's not angry about what happened to him, but said he is resentful.
"I've gotten threats, I've gotten different kind of looks so I live my life always looking behind back," he said. "There are others that still believe that I'm guilty, so I still live my life on pins and needles not knowing who to trust."
Attorneys announcing the settlement Friday said Staker's killer remains at large and may have been involved in other killings since Rivera's conviction.
On Friday, Rivera said he hopes to use the money to go to college to study business management and accounting, to put his nieces through school and to help pay for his mother's medical bills.
Yeah. I wish to dedicate this to all the idiots who say that a wrongful imprisonment is as impossible to compensate for as a wrongful execution.
$20 million is a fair settlement, especially considering the lawyers will probably take 75% of that.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2015, 03:39:32 PM
Yeah. I wish to dedicate this to all the idiots who say that a wrongful imprisonment is as impossible to compensate for as a wrongful execution.
The 42 year old millionaire who lost out on his youth has, surely, been made 100% whole. In fact, it'd probably be a bargain at half the price, right?
Quote from: Ideologue on March 21, 2015, 03:51:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2015, 03:39:32 PM
Yeah. I wish to dedicate this to all the idiots who say that a wrongful imprisonment is as impossible to compensate for as a wrongful execution.
The 42 year old millionaire who lost out on his youth has, surely, been made 100% whole. In fact, it'd probably be a bargain at half the price, right?
100% whole? Not sure. Beats being dead though,
Quote from: Ideologue on March 21, 2015, 03:51:43 PM
The 42 year old millionaire who lost out on his youth has, surely, been made 100% whole. In fact, it'd probably be a bargain at half the price, right?
I don't know. I mean, a lot of people would probably pay 20 million to get their 20s back.
Was definitely being sarcastic.
Thing is, a million dollars for one year's imprisonment seems fair, but once you're talking 20 years, especially 22-42, you've not just taken a third of a man's life, but stolen perilously close to the whole thing already.
Yep. The best part.
maybe he won't blow his money, but that last sentence suggests otherwise.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 21, 2015, 05:49:19 PM
Yep. The best part.
The part where one's body functions the best. Not necessarily the best part.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 21, 2015, 06:19:59 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 21, 2015, 05:49:19 PM
Yep. The best part.
The part where one's body functions the best. Not necessarily the best part.
Your 40s can be great, if you haven't made bad choices that cause them to suck. This guy didn't get the chance to make his own choices, good or bad.
I do think the guy should get some payment, but I'm not comfortable with the whole thing.
Wrongful convictions are an inevitable part of having a justice system. Is it any worse than a guy in his 20s getting ALS, or getting paralyzed by an uninsured drunk driver, or being convinced to take out student loans to pursue a humanities degree?
Yeah, it's worse than stuff that happen by accident. Sometimes bad shit happens to people. The justice system does bad shit to people on purpose. That's a terrible responsibility and one that needs to be used very carefully.
This doesn't seem to have been a case of the justice system doing a bad thing to a person on purpose.
Is it not? I mean they did it to him on purpose. They just had the wrong guy. :P
Oh, you mean like putting guilty people in prison is doing them harm on purpose. Sure.
We compensate negligent harm too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2015, 09:48:16 PM
This doesn't seem to have been a case of the justice system doing a bad thing to a person on purpose.
Well if this is true it could be.
QuoteThe majority of the case prosecutors built against Rivera revolved around a confession he signed. Though he admits to initially lying to investigators about where he was the night of the crime, Rivera argues the confession he signed after a four-day police interrogation was coerced.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2015, 08:25:39 PM
Wrongful convictions are an inevitable part of having a justice system. Is it any worse than a guy in his 20s getting ALS, or getting paralyzed by an uninsured drunk driver, or being convinced to take out student loans to pursue a humanities degree?
People have all kinds of bad luck, but in this case it is the State that is doing harm. So it makes sense the State would compensate here and not elsewhere.
I think that there should be a distinction between wrongful conviction and mistaken conviction. By that, I mean that an innocent person convicted due to some sort of misconduct by the state (either the investigating police or the prosecutors) should be compensated more than an innocent person convicted without any misconduct on the part of the authorities. Though it would be best if the increased compensation came from sanctions against those guilty of the misconduct, rather than the taxpayers.
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2015, 10:52:09 PM
I think that there should be a distinction between wrongful conviction and mistaken conviction. By that, I mean that an innocent person convicted due to some sort of misconduct by the state (either the investigating police or the prosecutors) should be compensated more than an innocent person convicted without any misconduct on the part of the authorities. Though it would be best if the increased compensation came from sanctions against those guilty of the misconduct, rather than the taxpayers.
I'm sure the police officers and prosecutors thus found liable would have no problem satisfying their judgments.
Yeah, I don't think the average retired cop or DA has 20 million sitting in a checking account.
Plus I understand that it's pretty rare that you have "innocent mistakes" in wrongful convictions, given 1)the numerous safeguards our system provides and 2)the institutional culture where one's job as a peace officer or prosecutor is to ensure convictions/keep the darkies down, rather than see justice done.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 21, 2015, 10:58:36 PM
Plus I understand that it's pretty rare that you have "innocent mistakes" in wrongful convictions, given 1)the numerous safeguards our system provides and 2)the institutional culture where one's job as a peace officer or prosecutor is to ensure convictions/keep the darkies down, rather than see justice done.
I think it might be more that innocent mistakes are less likely to get corrected--allegations of misconduct are the basis for a lot of appeals, as far as I can tell (though it this particular case, the successful appeal appears to be based on new evidence, rather than the possible misconduct).
And I wasn't suggesting that as a practical matter, persons wrongfully convicted can get substantial monetary compensation from cops or prosecutors, just that it would be a good thing if they could.
The prosecutors should have personal consequences.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 21, 2015, 10:17:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2015, 08:25:39 PM
Wrongful convictions are an inevitable part of having a justice system. Is it any worse than a guy in his 20s getting ALS, or getting paralyzed by an uninsured drunk driver, or being convinced to take out student loans to pursue a humanities degree?
People have all kinds of bad luck, but in this case it is the State that is doing harm. So it makes sense the State would compensate here and not elsewhere.
I really don't see a major distinction. There is general consensus that we need a criminal justice system and that the burden of proof should be less than absolute. It is inevitable that people will be wrongly convicted just as it is that people will be maimed by uninsured motorists. It is just a part of living in society.
I don't have a problem with the state tossing some money this guy's way as a gesture of kindness, but the state should have immunity from legal action imo.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 21, 2015, 11:21:14 PM
The prosecutors should have personal consequences.
This is where things get fuzzy to me. Prosecutorial Discretion has to be a thing, in both directions; but there should be some sort of oversight/hindsight/somethingsight that can help find the relatively small number of cases where a case was prosecuted when it shouldn't have been.
While I would have no problem holding the City/State/Etc prosecutor's office liable for wrongdoing it would take something incredibly serious for me to think a prosecutor should have personal consequences. But if that was discovered they should drop the hammer on him, professionally and personally.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 21, 2015, 11:21:14 PM
The prosecutors should have personal consequences.
For convicting a guy based on a signed confession? :huh:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2015, 11:39:11 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 21, 2015, 11:21:14 PM
The prosecutors should have personal consequences.
For convicting a guy based on a signed confession? :huh:
Yeah, in this particular case, there may have been police misconduct, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to think there was prosecutorial conduct.
How many cases of people being found innocent after years in prison are about gang members and similar who may be innocent of the particular crime they're convicted of but are still really bad people with similar or worse crimes on their conscience?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2015, 08:25:39 PM
I do think the guy should get some payment, but I'm not comfortable with the whole thing.
Wrongful convictions are an inevitable part of having a justice system. Is it any worse than a guy in his 20s getting ALS, or getting paralyzed by an uninsured drunk driver, or being convinced to take out student loans to pursue a humanities degree?
i thought the same when i read the story, but i can't be bothered to research this one to find out what exactly happened.
prosecutors have absolute immunity provided they operate within their prosecutorial duties. absolute immunity is pretty necessary for them, imo.
if the cops did something crazy, that could be where the twenty million came into play. or the government may have felt it'd have been evil or something to fight a lawsuit here and just settled.
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2015, 06:27:24 AM
Yeah, in this particular case, there may have been police misconduct, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to think there was prosecutorial conduct.
I wouldn't assume there was police misconduct either.
This involved a rape and murder of an 11 year old. The article said that he lied when being interrogated by the police. It isn't out of the realm of possibilities that they pick up a guy suspected of raping and murdering an 11 year old, he starts lying and acting stupid, they press hard with questioning, and he confesses because he is really stupid. Lots of people in jail are borderline mentally handicapped.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 22, 2015, 09:59:43 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2015, 08:25:39 PM
I do think the guy should get some payment, but I'm not comfortable with the whole thing.
Wrongful convictions are an inevitable part of having a justice system. Is it any worse than a guy in his 20s getting ALS, or getting paralyzed by an uninsured drunk driver, or being convinced to take out student loans to pursue a humanities degree?
i thought the same when i read the story, but i can't be bothered to research this one to find out what exactly happened.
prosecutors have absolute immunity provided they operate within their prosecutorial duties. absolute immunity is pretty necessary for them, imo.
if the cops did something crazy, that could be where the twenty million came into play. or the government may have felt it'd have been evil or something to fight a lawsuit here and just settled.
1) His confession was obtained during a psychotic episode, admitted as such by the police.
2) The initial judge showed so much bias that the appellate overturned his sentence of life without parole because he hadn't been allowed to mount a defense.
3) The dude should have been excluded as a suspect because he was
wearing an ankle monitoring bracelet when the crime happened.
The kicker is described here: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/il/juan-rivera.html
QuoteStanford University Law Professor Lawrence C. Marshall, who was co-founder of the Center on Wrongful Convictions in 1999 when he was a professor at Northwestern Law School, was the lead lawyer for the appeal of Rivera's third conviction. Marshall was joined by co-counsel from the Jenner & Block LLP and the Center.
Among the issues raised on appeal were whether the evidence had been sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Rivera had been denied his right to present a defense when Starck refused to allow the defense to present evidence rebutting the false claim of the police that Rivera knew facts only the perpetrator would have known, and whether Rivera's confessions should have been suppressed on the ground that they were involuntary.
The Appellate Court opinion — written by Justice Susan F. Hutchinson, with Justices John J. Bowman and Robert D. McLaren concurring — chastised the prosecution for advancing "highly improbable" theories that distorted the evidence "to an absurd degree" at the trial. Rivera, Hutchinson wrote, had "suffered the nightmare of wrongful incarceration." Finding the evidence insufficient as a matter of law, the Appellate Court did not reach other issues raised in the appeal.
Long story short, there was police misconduct in taking an involuntary confession to trial, prosecutorial misconduct in dismissing exculpatory evidence, and judicial misconduct in not allowing Rivera to defend himself adequately.
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).
So was he exonerated because of a "highly improbable prosecution theory," or because of new DNA evidence? I'm a little confused.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2015, 10:57:02 PM
Yeah, I don't think the average retired cop or DA has 20 million sitting in a checking account.
That's what it always comes back too, don't it Yi?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2015, 01:58:47 PM
That's what it always comes back too, don't it Yi?
Depends what "it" is.
Your constant gripes that government workers aren't paid enough, clearly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2015, 09:48:16 PM
This doesn't seem to have been a case of the justice system doing a bad thing to a person on purpose.
Do you have a problem with the state compensating people for harm caused wrongly, even if there is no culpability? That's an extremely communist position to take.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 22, 2015, 11:05:56 AM
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).
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.
The government hands out billions and billions every year that it has no obligation to hand out. A few millions here and there seems like a drop in the ocean.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 22, 2015, 10:50:21 AM
1) His confession was obtained during a psychotic episode, admitted as such by the police.
2) The initial judge showed so much bias that the appellate overturned his sentence of life without parole because he hadn't been allowed to mount a defense.
3) The dude should have been excluded as a suspect because he was wearing an ankle monitoring bracelet when the crime happened.
The kicker is described here: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/il/juan-rivera.html
QuoteStanford University Law Professor Lawrence C. Marshall, who was co-founder of the Center on Wrongful Convictions in 1999 when he was a professor at Northwestern Law School, was the lead lawyer for the appeal of Rivera's third conviction. Marshall was joined by co-counsel from the Jenner & Block LLP and the Center.
Among the issues raised on appeal were whether the evidence had been sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Rivera had been denied his right to present a defense when Starck refused to allow the defense to present evidence rebutting the false claim of the police that Rivera knew facts only the perpetrator would have known, and whether Rivera's confessions should have been suppressed on the ground that they were involuntary.
The Appellate Court opinion — written by Justice Susan F. Hutchinson, with Justices John J. Bowman and Robert D. McLaren concurring — chastised the prosecution for advancing "highly improbable" theories that distorted the evidence "to an absurd degree" at the trial. Rivera, Hutchinson wrote, had "suffered the nightmare of wrongful incarceration." Finding the evidence insufficient as a matter of law, the Appellate Court did not reach other issues raised in the appeal.
Long story short, there was police misconduct in taking an involuntary confession to trial, prosecutorial misconduct in dismissing exculpatory evidence, and judicial misconduct in not allowing Rivera to defend himself adequately.
It looks like this guy was given a sham trial or something damn close to it. Plus what the judge found on the prosecution side. This is all nuts what was done. As for compensation, I'd say he deserves it for the mistakes made by the state. In fact it's surprising that it took this long to free him, given some of these facts of how the case was prosecuted. But I assume the state's prosecutor was overly zealous while the defendant didn't have a good defending lawyer who could have called into question so much of this.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2015, 02:54:30 PM
Do you have a problem with the state compensating people for harm caused wrongly, even if there is no culpability? That's an extremely communist position to take.
It depends. I don't think the state should compensate people for each and every honest mistake.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2015, 03:21:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2015, 02:54:30 PM
Do you have a problem with the state compensating people for harm caused wrongly, even if there is no culpability? That's an extremely communist position to take.
It depends. I don't think the state should compensate people for each and every honest mistake.
Why not?
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2015, 03:40:52 PM
Why not?
Because perfection is not attainable. Because there is no upside to balance against the downside risk. Because people will try to game the system.
So we should let people be harmed by the state because we can't prevent some people from exploiting it? I thought you were a libertarian - that is an extremely statist position.
The state has special authority no other actor has; and its nature makes it often impossible to determine culpability of individual officials. All this supports the position that it should be liable on an objective basis.
In a dispute between the state and the individual I'd rather err on the side favouring the individual.
I mentioned more than one reason.
I don't understand your point about statism.
I don't understand your point about objectivity.
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2015, 02:56:01 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 22, 2015, 11:05:56 AM
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).
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.
All of know of this case is from this thread and DSB's link (which is good, and short) but based on that I would say "multiple confessions" is a bit of a stretch. They had to get the second because the first was so obviously false.
QuoteShortly after 8:00 A.M., investigators took the typed confession they had prepared to the padded cell, where Rivera signed it. The document — a narrative account of what the investigators claimed Rivera told them — was so riddled with incorrect and implausible information that Lake County State's Attorney Michael Waller instructed investigators to resume the interrogation in an effort to clear up the "inconsistencies." Despite Rivera's obvious fragile mental condition, the interrogation resumed at 11:30 A.M. About 90 minutes later, Rivera signed the second confession, which contained a plausible account of the crime.
Quote from: sbr on March 22, 2015, 04:11:44 PM
All of know of this case is from this thread and DSB's link (which is good, and short) but based on that I would say "multiple confessions" is a bit of a stretch. They had to get the second because the first was so obviously false.
Multiple means more than one. It isn't a "bit of a stretch" to say that two is more than one.
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2015, 04:44:04 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 22, 2015, 04:11:44 PM
All of know of this case is from this thread and DSB's link (which is good, and short) but based on that I would say "multiple confessions" is a bit of a stretch. They had to get the second because the first was so obviously false.
Multiple means more than one. It isn't a "bit of a stretch" to say that two is more than one.
True though "multiple" has a vibe of many while "a couple" suggests, well just two. :D
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2015, 04:44:04 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 22, 2015, 04:11:44 PM
All of know of this case is from this thread and DSB's link (which is good, and short) but based on that I would say "multiple confessions" is a bit of a stretch. They had to get the second because the first was so obviously false.
Multiple means more than one. It isn't a "bit of a stretch" to say that two is more than one.
I never said there wasn't more than one. He did in fact sign two confessions. The fact that the second one only came about because the first was so obviously fabricated by the cops that the DA sent them back to get another stretches that fact a bit from what multiple confessions would normally mean.
Quote from: garbon on March 22, 2015, 04:50:20 PM
True though "multiple" has a vibe of many while "a couple" suggests, well just two. :D
True, but if anyone gets
that DSBish we can just note the verbal confession that preceded the first written confession, and we are past the two-mark. :P None of these confessions were worth anything, but the jury hears about him confessing several times and the ground is well and truly poisoned.
Quote from: sbr on March 22, 2015, 05:01:33 PM
I never said there wasn't more than one. He did in fact sign two confessions. The fact that the second one only came about because the first was so obviously fabricated by the cops that the DA sent them back to get another stretches that fact a bit from what multiple confessions would normally mean.
I don't know as much as you about police fabricating confessions in this case, but here your conclusion is to repeat the very argument of mine that you contested. :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2015, 02:02:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2015, 01:58:47 PM
That's what it always comes back too, don't it Yi?
Depends what "it" is.
Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free".
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2015, 07:07:12 PM
Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free".
[Yeah, I don't think the average retired cop or DA has 20 million sitting in a checking account] is what [Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free"] always comes back to? No, I don't think so.
Good question though.
Wait Yi is a libertarian?
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2015, 07:36:36 PM
Wait Yi is a libertarian?
He's hidden it well, if he is.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2015, 07:36:36 PM
Wait Yi is a libertarian?
I have quite a bit of sympathy for libertarian ideals, but I'm not terribly fond of it as a political label.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2015, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2015, 07:07:12 PM
Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free".
[Yeah, I don't think the average retired cop or DA has 20 million sitting in a checking account] is what [Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free"] always comes back to? No, I don't think so.
Good question though.
I thought that was what you were getting at. Since people like CdM and Barrister don't have to 20 million bucks lying around to pay restitution, the 20 million will be paid by the state that is by tax payers and thus your reticence to see the wrongly convicted get large sums.
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].
If it's the agents of the people who wrongly ruin his life, then it falls to the people to pay restitution, I suppose.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2015, 09:03:45 PM
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.
That's the kind of guy I am.
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2015, 02:56:01 PMConfessions. 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.
Quote from: ValmyWait 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?
Why do people think I'm against this guy getting his 20 million? I said not every single mistake by government should be compensated.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 22, 2015, 09:43:54 PM
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.
Quoteis 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2015, 09:48:32 PM
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 22, 2015, 11:05:56 AM
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.
Everyone in law enforcement should have 4 simple directives:
1. Serve the public trust.
2. Protect the innocent.
3. Uphold the law.
Quote from: The Brain on March 23, 2015, 10:51:16 AM
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. :D
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 10:45:01 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2015, 09:48:32 PM
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.
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).
Quote from: The Brain on March 23, 2015, 10:51:16 AM
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?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 23, 2015, 10:47:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:01:15 AM
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 11:39:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:01:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:41:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 11:39:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:01:15 AM
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.
Read the rest of my post.
But that being said I don't think tax concerns should trump concerns over justice.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:41:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 11:39:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:01:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:46:05 AM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2015, 11:22:23 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 10:42:06 AMThey "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.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2015, 05:37:39 PM
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?
Quote(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.
Quote
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!"
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 11:48:12 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 07:00:29 PM
Quote from: LaCroix
(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.
Quote from: dps on March 23, 2015, 07:55:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 07:00:29 PM
Quote from: LaCroix
(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.
QuoteAlso 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.
Quote from: sbr on March 23, 2015, 08:18:47 PM
Quote from: dps on March 23, 2015, 07:55:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 07:00:29 PM
Quote from: LaCroix
(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.
QuoteAlso 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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:02:59 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 23, 2015, 10:51:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:02:59 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 23, 2015, 10:51:16 AM
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.
MOVIES? I SPEND ALL DAY HARVESTING POTATOES. BIG STRONG POLISH POTATOES.
Quote from: dps on March 23, 2015, 07:55:00 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 23, 2015, 07:10:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 11:48:12 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2015, 08:55:10 AM
Quote from: dps on March 23, 2015, 07:55:00 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on March 24, 2015, 12:23:44 PM
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.