TexasCHLforum.com

You guys are a laugh a minute.

"Not guilty" results when in the view of the jury, or trier of fact, the prosecution does not prove each and every element of the charge(s) "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There is another result, not necessarily formally recognized in the law, "innocent" after being convicted, and later exonerated. This is usually because improved forensics shows that the convicted person had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

I posted an article here a little while back about this. Texas leads the country in exonerations, by a wide margin. The thread devolved into statistical mumbo jumbo attempting to avoid the worrisome possibility that juries are not as careful as they need to be, or maybe that law enforcement isn't.

Innocent people are being convicted of very serious crimes wrongfully. Those guys ought to be paid from state funds.

It is hard to hold the prosecutor liable in the absence of evidence of malice, or other bad acts, suppression of exculpatory evidence, intimidation of witnesses, subirning perjury, etc. Those of you who have done more than one trial probably realize how trials don't always go as scripted. Witnesses blow their stories, exhibits don't get admitted, witnesses are effectively impeached. Ask the LA DAs who tried OJ how this happens!

JALLEN wrote:You guys are a laugh a minute.

"Not guilty" results when in the view of the jury, or trier of fact, the prosecution does not prove each and every element of the charge(s) "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There is another result, not necessarily formally recognized in the law, "innocent" after being convicted, and later exonerated. This is usually because improved forensics shows that the convicted person had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

I posted an article here a little while back about this. Texas leads the country in exonerations, by a wide margin. The thread devolved into statistical mumbo jumbo attempting to avoid the worrisome possibility that juries are not as careful as they need to be, or maybe that law enforcement isn't.

Innocent people are being convicted of very serious crimes wrongfully. Those guys ought to be paid from state funds.

It is hard to hold the prosecutor liable in the absence of evidence of malice, or other bad acts, suppression of exculpatory evidence, intimidation of witnesses, subirning perjury, etc. Those of you who have done more than one trial probably realize how trials don't always go as scripted. Witnesses blow their stories, exhibits don't get admitted, witnesses are effectively impeached. Ask the LA DAs who tried OJ how this happens!

The problem with all the talk about exoneration rates is few people who bring it up want to talk specifically about how to change the system to prevent it. They just want to complain about getting rid of the death penalty or something.

The problem with all the talk about exoneration rates is few people who bring it up want to talk specifically about how to change the system to prevent it. They just want to complain about getting rid of the death penalty or something.

I admit I am interested in getting rid of the death penalty, but only for innocent defendants.

I don't know how best to prevent it, but it is a very serious defect in our justice system.

I also remember a man who was exonerated after more than 20 years in prison, freed by conclusive proof that he had nothing to do with the murder he had been convicted of. He had been sentenced to death, but some paperwork foul up had delayed it. "Miscarriage of justice" hardly covers it. I wrote Governor Perry to recommend Perry appoint him to a job on his staff working on mistakes in the justice system.

WildBill wrote:

tomneal wrote:Rick Perry is not the first person to spend a fortune defending against bogus charges.

It's not exactly gun related but I'd like to see three possible verdicts:

Guilty
Not Guilty
Innocent

If you are found Innocent, the District Attorney pays your defense bill.

I would like to see DAs who file bogus and malicious charges disbarred, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed.

That would be perfect. Whether punishments or rewards for incintivizing good behavior, I'd like to see some progress towards de-incintivizing this kind of gross injustice.

WildBill wrote: I would like to see DAs who file bogus and malicious charges disbarred, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed.

Yep.
It appears that the only people who are required to pay when we do things with intent to harm others are you and me. Politicians and gov't employees, not so much.

JALLEN wrote:

The problem with all the talk about exoneration rates is few people who bring it up want to talk specifically about how to change the system to prevent it. They just want to complain about getting rid of the death penalty or something.

I admit I am interested in getting rid of the death penalty, but only for innocent defendants.

I don't know how best to prevent it, but it is a very serious defect in our justice system.

I also remember a man who was exonerated after more than 20 years in prison, freed by conclusive proof that he had nothing to do with the murder he had been convicted of. He had been sentenced to death, but some paperwork foul up had delayed it. "Miscarriage of justice" hardly covers it. I wrote Governor Perry to recommend Perry appoint him to a job on his staff working on mistakes in the justice system.

You have to be very careful about the "exonerations" that take place in many of these cases that are brought by anti-death penalty groups. They aren't necessarily proving innocence, but introducing enough doubt that the person cannot be proven guilty. Of course, they should then be cleared if there is any doubt, but I'm not convinced given the rarity of the death penalty that any innocent person has ever been executed...since 1978 when SCOTUS allowed it again.

It will all be moot by next year when Hillary appoints her new justice(s) who will repeal the death penalty via judicial fiat.

ScottDLS wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

The problem with all the talk about exoneration rates is few people who bring it up want to talk specifically about how to change the system to prevent it. They just want to complain about getting rid of the death penalty or something.

I admit I am interested in getting rid of the death penalty, but only for innocent defendants.

I don't know how best to prevent it, but it is a very serious defect in our justice system.

I also remember a man who was exonerated after more than 20 years in prison, freed by conclusive proof that he had nothing to do with the murder he had been convicted of. He had been sentenced to death, but some paperwork foul up had delayed it. "Miscarriage of justice" hardly covers it. I wrote Governor Perry to recommend Perry appoint him to a job on his staff working on mistakes in the justice system.

You have to be very careful about the "exonerations" that take place in many of these cases that are brought by anti-death penalty groups. They aren't necessarily proving innocence, but introducing enough doubt that the person cannot be proven guilty. Of course, they should then be cleared if there is any doubt, but I'm not convinced given the rarity of the death penalty that any innocent person has ever been executed...since 1978 when SCOTUS allowed it again.

It will all be moot by next year when Hillary appoints her new justice(s) who will repeal the death penalty via judicial fiat.

I believe they are "very careful" in exoneration cases. I wish they were as careful in the trials and deliberations in the first instance.

In the case I alluded to, it was apparently determined that it was impossible for the person convicted to have been guilty. He spent a couple of decades, I don't recall how many, on death row before being exonerated and released.

ScottDLS wrote:
It will all be moot by next year when Hillary appoints her new justice(s) who will repeal the death penalty via judicial fiat.

While I personally am not enamored of the current president elect, I am ENORMOUSLY happy that your prediction did not come to fruition. As I would wager that you are also happy that you blew your prediction.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:
It will all be moot by next year when Hillary appoints her new justice(s) who will repeal the death penalty via judicial fiat.

While I personally am not enamored of the current president elect, I am ENORMOUSLY happy that your prediction did not come to fruition. As I would wager that you are also happy that you blew your prediction.

I was blown away by the results...the MSM had me convinced Hillary would win. I liked Ted Cruz better, but I voted for Trump and I am happy that he won....

I was relieved by the result as well.

One additional point on this subject. Two points have been brought up: 1) politically motivated charges and prosecutions, and 2) exoneration of people who were previously found guilty. IMO, both issues are related in that prosecutors pursue charges that they shouldn't for the same reasons. Of course, #2 may go further into police conduct as well. I don't think either prosecutors or police should have complete immunity.