|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint Prosecutors: "We have a legal right to frame innocent people"|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
* |
"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120069519"
Okay - you're a Judge of the United States Supreme Court hearing this case. Can prosecutors frame an innocent person and escape any punishment because they have "immunity"? Your judgment and comments? |
||
|
* |
That's ********. Lock the sons of *****es up.
|
|||
|
veni, vidi, vici |
If this prosecutor knew of this and it can be proved, then "yes" he should be sued for criminal intent. They should not be immuned to anything. No lawer should be immuned. Wouldn't it be great for the lawers themselves be sued and tried? They should be subjected to the same as everyone else. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
NO IMMUNITY !!! This is "color of law" and is specifically EXCLUDED as an immune act, throw the slime in jail.
|
|||
|
Quiet Professional |
I’ve often thought this was a major flaw in our criminal justice system. When an individual has to pony up thousands of dollars in a defense fund or face a court appointed attorney, is that really innocent until proven guilty? In many civil cases, a judgement against one party will likely include court costs for the favorable party.
Perhaps holding prosecuting and District Attorneys accountable for a defendant’s financial loss would persuade municipalities to ensure innocent people are not defending themselves from an overly aggressive prosecution team. If a defendent walks, you pay his/her legal defense fees. It's fair, after all, that’s what the criminal justice system is about. Ever try an argue even a minor traffic infraction like seat belt ticket? It's an officers word against yours, and in many municipalities the judge is also the prosecuting attorney...you think he/she wants to pass up the revenue from fines? After all, that's likely where his/her salary comes from. Don't get me wrong, it's very possible to have these charges dismissed, but all it takes in one dishonest player and your a defendent when you shouldn't be. C.R. |
|||
|
-------------------  Proud Member Derelict Veterans' Group -------------------  |
Great Topic FD. I believe if it's proven they withheld evidence in addition to coaching a witness, either of them can be disbarred and opens them up for criminal prosecution as well as civil lawsuits. It's ashame that so many times we hear about these bad apples. I do not believe they are immune though. If it's proven, then they pay the piper. Todays politics remind me of an old saying. - "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin |
|||
|
Member |
15 years ago or so, the state of California passed a law that says.
If the procecution has evidence that will harm the procecutions case, they dont haft to share that with the defence. Dont seem right to me. Shockey |
|||
|
* |
I predict that nobody here actually knows dick about this, but they'll comment, anyway.
Okay... let me be the I think it's wrong. |
|||
|
|
------------------- Proud Member Derelict Veterans' Group ------------------- |
On one side of the case being argued are Iowa prosecutors who contend "there is no freestanding right not to be framed." They are backed by the Obama administration, 28 states and every major prosecutors organization in the country.
I find this very telling. At least his Administration is consistant when it comes to cheating and corruption. NO I DID NOT SAY President Obama, I said his Administration. Todays politics remind me of an old saying. - "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin |
|||
|
|
Navy Forums Moderator and Keeper of the Cane GerryRM3@yahoo.com  |
Sounds like conspiracy to commit perjury. They coached the witness to lie which is perjury so therefore they are guilty of conspiracy at the least. I say make em serve the ammount of time that the two defendants they framed served as punishment. USS Liberty, Never Forget. I believe in Murrays Law, he thought Murphy was an optimist. |
|||
|
|
Quiet Professional |
And that law would be complete and utter BS. It's called Discovery and anything not handed over to the defense councel cannot be admitted into court so long the defense asked for the Discovery. The defendent could easily have a Writ of Certiorari and have a higher court stand on the case. C.R. |
|||
|
|
---------------- Proud Member ----------------  |
Since SCOTUS wouldn't be the court of initial jurisiction in this case, I thought I'd look a bit further...
Don't play JOSCOTUS without the writ, kids. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/08-1065_cert_rep.pdf Seems we have a 'Circuit Split' on this issue-- the 8th Circuit found for McGhee and Harrington, and so McGhee and Harrington are arguing against SCOTUS review. The 10th CIrcuit in Clanton v Cooper that an unsuccessfully prosecuted defendant could pursue damages on the theory that a government officer's coercion of a statement froma a third party violated the defendant's 14th Amendment rights...but: The 3rd Circuit in Michaels concluded that impermissible interrogation techniques used on third parties do not violate a criminal defendant's constitutional rights. 'Buckley II' in the 7th Circuit found "...that procurement of false evidence during an investigation does not in itself violate a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights, and that introduction of the same evidence by a prosecutor at trial is covered by absolute immunity..." but... The 2nd Circuit in Zahrey expressly rejected the findings at the heart of Buckley II. The 9th Circuit in Milstein held that a prosecutor was protected by absolute immunity where he had allegedly directed an investigator to sign a complaint even though he knew it to be false. Reading a page on NPR (or anywhere else) doesn't approach the study needed to decide the Constitutionality of a judicial decision as much as the birthers, tenthers, twelfthers and secessionist oath-keepers would like us all to believe. Wanna be the justice? Read the writ, watch for the oral arguments, and take six months to think about it. In the meantime, McGhee and Harrington are free to pursue remedy for their harms from the police departments and investigators involved. That said, it smells an awful lot like a civil rights violation and a crime to me. Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
---------------- Proud Member ---------------- |
The Gordie Howe Rule. I like it. Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
---------------- Proud Member ---------------- |
Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
Member |
The established court system supported by our Constitution may take a hit that will hinder the justice system if prosecutors can be sued.
If a prosecutor is sued and taken to court, it will be used to muck up the justice system by practically every defense attorney. IMO what is needed is: a "prosecutor" i.e. the "office" and the government is imune from lawsuit. The person who occupies the office and has engaged in an illegal act to convict, faces criminal charges and if convicted, is subject to a lawsuit for damages from the wronged citizen. Of concern is: Will a retrial be possible if there is evidence other than that used to frame? |
|||
|
|
Member |
This is the way I always believed it was, but I know they passed that law. I havent heard anything more about it and I'm a long way away from there, so it might have got tossed. Discovery (I believe) is about evidence they are useing to make their case (bringing to court). If it's not going to be used to make their case, it's not subject to discovery. Shockey |
|||
|
|
------------------- Proud Member Derelict Veterans' Group ------------------- |
SO what you are saying is, if the Prosecuters had evidence that would clear a defendant, because it wouldn't help the prosecuters, they do not need to disclose it during discovery? Todays politics remind me of an old saying. - "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
No immunity.. Withholding evidence that proves innocence is as wrong as fabricating false evidence. |
|||
|
|
|
Wouldn't what these prosecutors were doing count as "Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice"?
I'm pretty sure that's a Common Law offence and therefore as central to US and English law as murder and theft. |
|||
|
|
Quiet Professional |
Discovery is everything...witness lists, evidence, police reports, documents, materials, testing procedures, etc. That's why so many cases are settled between attorneys on the golf course or over dinner, because both sides know what the others got. But yes, if the prosecutor has evidence that clears the defendent then obviously they shouldn't be tried in a criminal case and the defense could make a motion for dismissal and the judge would review the request and supporting documentation. C.R. |
|||
|
|
---------------- Proud Member ---------------- |
Two issues that I see.
The Civil Rights Division of the USDOJ should be prosecuting what seems to be an admitted set of deliberate acts to deprive McGhee and Harrington of their rights to due process under 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights) and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation under colour of law). That's the criminal side, and I don't think the SCOTUS case at hand addresses that issue. McGhee and Harrington are suing for compensation for damages suffered as a result of those acts, and I don't think they'll win on the civil side even though the 8th Circuit found in their favour. SCOTUS will overturn, they'll be instructed to sue the police, and the City of Council Bluffs will settle large. The ideological split may be surprising, though...from what I've seen of the arguments, Breyer is siding with Roberts, Kennedy with Stevens...and Thomas simply believes that the split between the Circuits can't be allowed to continue without a decision from The Supremes. Here's another twist: Dubya's Solicitor General is Counsel for McGhee. Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
Member |
What I'm saying is Discovery is a way for the defence to see what the case against the defendent is, and for the procecuiter to see what the defence is. If it's not going to be taken to court, discovery does not cover it. Cal passed a law that said. The procesecution did not haft to share evidence that would weaken their case. Federal law seems to be in conflict. Shockey |
|||
|
|
---------------- Proud Member ---------------- |
Not so simple in a criminal case. Defendants can't be compelled to incriminate themselves, and their communications with counsel are privileged...prosecutors can protect witnesses from intimidation, so discovery in a criminal case isn't really complete. Brady simply requires the Prosecution to turn over exculpatory evidence. I'm hoping you'll offer a link or a citation to a California law that supersedes the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
Member |
Nope, no link
It was a long time ago and far away, and I not going to look it up for you. I only remember it because it just seemed so wrong, but it was on the new's, radio,tv,paper Shockey |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
I have been in the legal field for a number of years and I have to totally disagree with you. Our legal systems has frankly become quit disgusting. It is no longer about "justice" if it ever was and I firmly believe it has never been about guilt or innocence. It is all about winning the case period. Frankly I am to the point that I would even aprove of a little "West Virginia backwoods justice" if the law will not punish prosocutors/police who knowingly do anything obtain a false conviction. Frisco |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Perhaps I was too abrupt. I say that the PROSECUTOR should get no immunity. That they acted outside the law to impose a conviction inocent parties. A crime and, as it was OUTSIDE THE LAW, BUT THEY pretended what they were doing was lawful, they lose their normal immunities and may be sued.
Are we more or less on the same page now? |
|||
|
|
---------------- Proud Member ---------------- |
Sure we are...until we're talking about a child molestor convicted with ginned up evidence...or a 'terrorist' jailed where no case could be made. IV, V,VI and XIV are easy to back when the defendant is known to be innocent. The Rule of Law gets tougher for some to swallow when the Rights are guaranteed for someone less savory. Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
LOL, yes we are on the same page! Thank you for the clarification. I hope my response on another thread you commented on is clear or I may find myself trying to further clarify my thoughts to you! (Italian Judge.....) Have a great day! Frisco |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Concur. If they knowingly framed the guys, they should stand before justice without immunity. Not only should they be able to be sued, they should have to serve time in general population and pay a fine too.  |
|||
|
"The day is wasted in which you learn nothing" |
Sounds like framing to me, but what do I know? My take is that the prosecution is interested only in putting a W in the last column. A win is job security, a loss is as good as a resignation. The theory is that the defendant, innocent until proven guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt), will have an equal opportunity before the bench. But all know that a lot of things skew the process, not the least of which, is da moola.
|
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint Prosecutors: "We have a legal right to frame innocent people"
