Posted on 04/28/2010 12:32:53 PM PDT by Nachum
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - A New York truck driver who spent nearly 19 years behind bars for a 1988 slaying he didn't commit walked free Wednesday after DNA testing exonerated him and instead pointed to another prison inmate.
The exonerated inmate, Frank Sterling, 46, was convicted of murder in 1992 based on a confession that he later recanted.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Never confess to something when you’re innocent. As to the all-night grilling, I cannot believe they didn’t allow him to have a lawyer present, nor did he summon one.
Never talk to the police without a lawyer.
No problem with that.IMO the two great things about DNA is that it lessens the chances of a guilty person getting away with a crime and it *also* lessens the chance of innocent person being wrongly convicted *and* makes it easier for those wrongly convicted in the past to prove their innocence later on.
Rule number one. Thou shall not confess.
Yep, if you ever watch the “First 48 Hours” on cable, you’ll see that the police’s standard practice is to bring in suspects/witnesses/people of interest for a friendly chat which drags on and on for hours, without bothering to alert the suspect to his or her right to a lawyer. The smarter suspects, mostly ex-cons who know the system, always ask for a lawyer up front. The rest have no clue.
ummmmmmmm don’t confess if you didn’t do the crime. How hard is it to understand that?
On the bright side of this, the man will now be a millionaire.
If you're charged with a serious crime that might be wise.But if *I* was ever charged with such a crime (and knew I was innocent) I'd want a lawyer present but I'd still cooperate fully with the cops by giving them anything they want.But if I was guilty you couldn't separate my lips with a crowbar.
Very bad policy. Very bad.
Nobody has ever said, “I wish I had said more to the cops.”
Don't talk to cops
I am a member of the Innocence Project. The prisons have a significant number of innocent convicts, usually in bogus or misidentified rape cases.
And what of the prosecutor who wanted to clear a case rather than ensure guilt?
Too many focus on “wins” rather than justice (at all levels of prosecution).
Sometimes you get a court appointed attorney, sometimes you pay for your own. In either case, your lawyer may not have your best interests at heart when he tells you to cop a plea to something you didn’t do.
You should rethink that.
Rule #2: You can't talk yourself out of trouble, but you can talk yourself into it.
Link no workee...
You need to click on the link above and watch carefully.
So does that mean “refusal to answer” is “refusal to cooperate” with an implication of guilt?
Some start with the notion that you ARE guilty (or that all of the suspects are guilty of “something”). They are perfectly content to let you tell them all sorts of details and keep digging a hole into which they can bury you.
We’ve seen a number of very high profile cases (Duke Lacrosse, Olympic Park bomber, American anthrax mailings) where the prosecutors moved on inspite of evidence against the case and eventually their names were cleared but not until after they’d already suffered “trial by media”.
Whether they get the right guy or not is mostly irrelevant, so long as they get the arrest and the conviction.
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.