Posted on 03/31/2010 6:24:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
Coagulated.
Seriously? The man was deprived of evidence that would have exonerated him. The prosecutor knew it, withheld it and even devised a strategy of convicting him on the robbery charges FIRST, so the defendant would be unlikely to take the stand in his own defense, as this would leave defendant open to impeach ability of prior case.
So, if I read this story as the author hopes, Thompson was convicted of murder with absolutely no evidence put forth.
All of these "exonerations" are not necessarily of "innocent" men.
Or alternately, the jury in the second trial deliberately acquitted a guilty murderer to get back at “the man” for injustices both real and perceived and FReepers applaud.
It’s kind of like the “Jena 6” debacle, you cobble together any sort of tale about Southern “injustice” and then stand clear as the knees start jerking.
it would be enough if the actual people responsible for this travesty had to pay it, but that’s not going to happen. It’s just another shaft of the taxpayer. Unfortunately, the taxpayer doesn’t demand accountability, so they get to foot the bill. if I had my way, a heck of a lot of the protections against liability would be removed from “civil servants”.
I realize that a ‘paper article is not sworn testimony. I recognize the justice and fairness issues here.
My concern is with the way the evidence is being presented- well, if the blood on the pants is not the accused’s, then he must go free. But what if the blood were the victim’s? Does the accused still have to go free?
The evidence, presented in this incomplete way, does not logically support the premise that the accused was not there. It just says it’s not his blood on the pants. Whose blood is it? A third party who may be the real perpetrator, or the victim? In the latter case the evidence does not exhonerate the accused.
Well, thank you, Sir. Just seems reasonable that if we’re going to accept responsibility for doing a job, that we do it according to the lawfully enacted rules, or get the rules changed. I don’t see this rule changing, because it upholds the highest and best standards constraining the use of the state’s coercive power.
Have a great day.
Colonel, USAFR
Yeah, and there are always Freepers who can look at a man falsely convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison and say, “Well, he must have been guilty of something.”
Well then fry the guy.
Yep. See DBrow’s posts. Apparently he doesn’t get that the prosecutor knew and admitted to exculpatory evidence being unconstitutionally withheld and only got a conscience about the whole thing on his deathbed due to cancer.
This guy was screwed and the prosecutor knew what he was doing and it was wrong.
He should be in jeopardy, under the law.
To be complicit in the execution/killing of a man who doesn’t deserve to be killed - IS MURDER!!
The perpetrators should be prosecuted and if found guilty should serve a minimum of 14YEARS before being eligible for parole.
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO “AN EYE FOR AN EYE & A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH ?
It’s been replaced by SOCIAL JUSTICE which is NO JUSTICE at all.
INDEED. HIDEOUS.
I don’t see why prosecutors ought to have immunity for misconduct. In this case, all the prosecutors should go on trial for attempted murder.
I expected ugly and unintelligent responses to my post. Thank you for breaking the ice.
Here are a couple of points for you to contemplate:
(1) I did not say the the freed man was guilty.
(2) The article does not provide any information upon which to base the conclusion that the freed man was innocent of murder.
(3) I stated No 2 and you responded with criticism that I had stated No. 1.
Logic FAIL!
Could be.
Any opinion on the Randall Adams case?
What you said was that the jury may have freed a "guilty murderer" to "get back at the man."
2) The article does not provide any information upon which to base the conclusion that the freed man was innocent of murder.
It did, however, give information that was enough to support the new jury's verdict that someone else did it. Don't forget that, while disputing the damages award, the DA's office admits unethical and illegal denial of exculpatory evidence. But I suppose maybe the jury didn't care about the evidence that someone else committed the murder and the fact that the DA's office lied and covered up evidence and would have released him if he'd stood up in court and shouted "Yeah, I killed him" because they're only interesting in sticking it to the man. Because that's how those people are, right?
No, that might be hasty. Maybe the issue was clarified in the trial, and obfuscated in the article. The article itself is slanted. The guy got the death penalty for a murder, not the robbery in question.
The anti-death penalty advocates do sometimes rely on inaccurate data or illogical conclusions to make their case, but there is just not enough data to tell from the article.
There was a case from the 70’s or early 80’s that the anti-death penalty activists were trying to get thrown out in the 2000s because there “was no DNA evidence” found at the scene tying the accused to the scene. Well, back then, cops did not routinely collect such evidence, was a good reason why, on top of the illogic of the claim. They had three witnesses and a confession, but the new jury was swayed by the “lack of DNA evidence”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.