Posted on 12/26/2018 12:09:02 PM PST by artichokegrower
After The New York Times reported that death row inmate Kevin Cooper may have been framed for the murder of a family of four in 1983, he got the Christmas present of new hope on Monday when California Gov. Jerry Brown ordered a new DNA test that could prove his innocence.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
“I wonder how many are actually, 100% innocent, of crimes *related* to the crime they were imprisoned for.”
There are some.
And if it was you or your son, we would all say one is too many.
I’d argue that there can be harm and a grave miscarriage of justice, depending on what is being tested.
Testing new samples from Cooper to confirm that the samples used to convict him, were really his DNA, seems fine. If nefarious racist plotters faked his DNA in 1983, I guess new samples wouldn’t match his 1983 lab results.
Retesting 25-year-old samples from the crime scenes, has some likelihood of producing meaningless “no match” results because the samples have degraded over time, possibly worsened by storage conditions. Retesting the crime scene evidence would be nothing but a scam to pretend it shows “innocence”, when it does nothing of the kind.
I’m so sorry. Will pray for him.
I’m not clicking HuffPo (I respect my PC more than that), so will someone explain how crimes committed in Pennsylvania are being retried in California?
It does no harm to make sure that the man in jail for these crimes is the right man.
It isn’t just about letting this man go if he’s innocent of these crimes it’s also about going after the person who did them.
It’s also time to consider charges against the police and prosecutors if their case against the defendant was malicious.
> I discovered that I was 7 1/2% Mongolian! <
Then you ought to try BD’s Mongolian Grill on the Sou-Side. As a fellow countryman, you’re bound to get a big discount.
And you ought to apply for a professorship at Pitt, too. Pitt is pretty leftist these days, and they might need a Mongolian professor to complete their inclusion bingo card.
Kevin Cooper had a criminal career in Pennsylvania including multiple burglaries and at least one rape. He escaped from custody there and went to California. In California he continued his criminal career including one more rape. He escaped from prison in California, broke into the murdered family’s next door neighbor’s house and stayed there two days. They have the phone records of Cooper calling friends from the house. The murdered family live 100 yards away. In 2001, Cooper became the first death row inmate in California to successfully request post-conviction DNA testing of evidence. The results of those DNA tests failed to exonerate him of the 1983 murders and indicated Cooper’s DNA was present both at the crime scene and in the family’s stolen station wagon. I dunno career criminal, admitted rapist, breaking into and staying in the neighbor’s house, stealing the family’s car, DNA result positive. Makes me pretty suspicious.
If it proves his guilt, then instant execution.
Feel lucky punk? Well, do ya?
Thank you,
Thank you
Thank you
remember he was an escaped inmate. So, not a good guy from the git.
he was in custody at Cal Inst for Men in Chino, CA. He escaped and slaughtered these folks in the nearby hills.
If the convict has an otherwise clean record or perhaps nothing more than a misdemeanor or two, then by all means let's consider the new evidence and clear the man if there is any reasonable doubt.
However, if the rap sheet is a mile long (as they often are in these cases) with multiple felony convictions, history of violence and whatnot, then let the man rot in jail regardless.
I sat on a jury once for a murder trial and the prosecution was strictly forbidden from mentioning the past criminal history of the defendant. We (the jury) were even told to "disregard" the fact that he appeared in the courtroom in an orange jumpsuit.
After the trial was over, we were finally told during the sentencing phase that this guy was already serving a prison term for another crime (which was why he appeared in an orange jumpsuit) and had a long history of other crimes. Yet this was not allowed to be mentioned in court during the trial.
Fortunately we did convict the man but we would have deliberated a lot less had we been made aware of the prior violent and criminal history of this man. Some say each trial needs to be conducted in a "vacuum" of presumed innocence which included masking previous convictions. I do not agree with that opinion. I think previous criminal history should be relevant during trial and vice versa - as a jury would usually cut a defendant a little more slack if there were no prior convictions and this was his first brush with the law.
If the convict has an otherwise clean record or perhaps nothing more than a misdemeanor or two, then by all means let's consider the new evidence and clear the man if there is any reasonable doubt.
However, if the rap sheet is a mile long (as they often are in these cases) with multiple felony convictions, history of violence and whatnot, then let the man rot in jail regardless.
I sat on a jury once for a murder trial and the prosecution was strictly forbidden from mentioning the past criminal history of the defendant. We (the jury) were even told to "disregard" the fact that he appeared in the courtroom in an orange jumpsuit.
After the trial was over, we were finally told during the sentencing phase that this guy was already serving a prison term for another crime (which was why he appeared in an orange jumpsuit) and had a long history of other crimes. Yet this was not allowed to be mentioned in court during the trial.
Fortunately we did convict the man but we would have deliberated a lot less had we been made aware of the prior violent and criminal history of this man. Some say each trial needs to be conducted in a "vacuum" of presumed innocence which included masking previous convictions. I do not agree with that opinion. I think previous criminal history should be relevant during trial and vice versa - as a jury would usually cut a defendant a little more slack if there were no prior convictions and this was his first brush with the law.
Having a record is no guarantee that you are guilty of a crime. Otherwise, just dispense with a trial altogether.
If you go to trial and are convicted, then your past should influence the sentencing.
Well said. No one is safe while lawless lawfare can be inflicted upon political enemies by criminal apparatchiks.
I am sorry for your son, and for you.
Not saying that you should be convicted of a given crime on past convictions alone but they ought to be considered as a factor. That also holds true in the reverse. A jury also ought to know if the defendant has a clean criminal record as it might allow for a lower threshold of reasonable doubt for acquittal.
Perhaps they can use his DNA to link him to any other crimes he has committed.
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.