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

[LaCroix]

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.

[alfred russel]

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.

[DontSayBanana]

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

Stanford 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.

[LaCroix]

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).

[Admiral Yi]

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

[Razgovory]

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?

[Admiral Yi]

That's what it always comes back too, don't it Yi?

Depends what "it" is.

[Eddie Teach]

Your constant gripes that government workers aren't paid enough, clearly.

[Martinus]

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.

[grumbler]

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 Brain]

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.

[KRonn]

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

Stanford 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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[Martinus]

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?

[Admiral Yi]

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.