FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

When Prosecutors are Dead Wrong

Recently I exchanged emails with CounterPuncher Bruce Jackson, SUNY Distinguished Professor and Samuel P. Capen Professor of American Culture at SUNY Buffalo and editor of The Buffalo Report. We were communicating about the use of narrative in court trials. I shared with him my belief that the prosecution and the defense put forth the best “story,” or version of the facts, that will convince a jury either to convict or acquit. Sometimes the “right” story wins–and justice is done. Just as often, I believe, the “wrong” story prevails, and innocent people are convicted.

Given this adversarial system that puts the lawyers in charge of the evidence that the jury hears, it is no surprise that guilty people are acquitted and innocent people convicted. The availability of sophisticated DNA tests had been expected to bring factual accuracy to criminal trials. DNA tests, in some cases, can rule out a suspect as the perpetrator. But, ironically, DNA testing, which has led to the release of scores of people from prison, even death row, is becoming a victim of its own success. Prosecutors are sick of releasing people based on DNA tests that tend to exonerate them.

So what are they doing? As reported in an editorial in The New York Times, they are doing whatever they can to keep those exonerated in prison or retry them without the DNA evidence. Ignorantly, some prosecutors point to eyewitnesses who can “swear” they saw the victim “do it,” this in spite of extensive research about eyewitnesses testimony that shows it to be among the least reliable of courtroom evidence. The Department of Justice even went so far as to write guidelines for the use of eyewitnesses evidence, which, if adhered to, would reduce the number of falsely accused and convicted persons.

These guidelines are not, sad to say, mandatory. And prosecutors loathe to free an innocent person will scour around for someone willing to swear they saw the accused “do it.”

Some states make prosecutors’ jobs easy by having an extremely limited time period within which a convict can bring up evidence of innocence. Virginia has a 21-day rule that guarantees that no one can have his day in court to present new exculpatory evidence. Such evidence is often not available for years. Convicts have no access to physical evidence used against them; few have the money to afford legal counsel and the DNA tests themselves.

If the 4th (unreasonable searches and seizures), 5th (due process of law), 8th (prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment) and 14th (equal protection of the laws) amendments to the Constitution mean anything, they mean that our system ought to do anything within its power to keep innocent people from being found “guilty” and locked away or executed.

It is a disgraceful state of affairs when prosecutors vow to do all they can to keep innocent people behind bars. When they prefer convictions to justice, and finality–even if dead wrong–to truth.

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
July 22, 2019
Michael Hudson
U.S. Economic Warfare and Likely Foreign Defenses
Evaggelos Vallianatos
If Japan Continues Slaughtering Whales, Boycott the 2020 Tokyo Olympics
Mike Garrity
Emergency Alert For the Wild Rockies
Dean Baker
The U.S.-China Trade War: Will Workers Lose?
Jonah Raskin
Paul Krassner, 1932-2019: American Satirist 
David Swanson
U.S. Troops Back in Saudi Arabia: What Could Go Wrong?
Robert Fisk
American Visitors to the Gestapo Museum Draw Their Own Conclusions
John Feffer
Trump’s Send-Them-Back Doctrine
Kenn Orphan – Phil Rockstroh
Landscape of Anguish and Palliatives: Predation, Addiction and LOL Emoticons in the Age of Late Stage Capitalism
Karl Grossman
A Farmworkers Bill of Rights
Gary Leupp
Omar and Trump
Robert Koehler
Fighting Climate Change Means Ending War
Susie Day
Mexicans Invade US, Trump Forced to Go Without Toothbrush
Elliot Sperber
Hey Diddle Diddle, Like Nero We Fiddle
Weekend Edition
July 19, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Rob Urie
The Blob Fought the Squad, and the Squad Won
Miguel A. Cruz-Díaz
It Was Never Just About the Chat: Ruminations on a Puerto Rican Revolution.
Anthony DiMaggio
System Capture 2020: The Role of the Upper-Class in Shaping Democratic Primary Politics
Andrew Levine
South Carolina Speaks for Whom?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Big Man, Pig Man
Bruce E. Levine
The Groundbreaking Public Health Study That Should Change U.S. Society—But Won’t
Evaggelos Vallianatos
How the Trump Administration is Eviscerating the Federal Government
Pete Dolack
All Seemed Possible When the Sandinistas Took Power 40 years Ago
Ramzy Baroud
Who Killed Oscar and Valeria: The Inconvenient History of the Refugee Crisis
Ron Jacobs
Dancing with Dr. Benway
Joseph Natoli
Gaming the Climate
Marshall Auerback
The Numbers are In, and Trump’s Tax Cuts are a Bust
Louisa Willcox
Wild Thoughts About the Wild Gallatin
Kenn Orphan
Stranger Things, Stranger Times
Mike Garrity
Environmentalists and Wilderness are Not the Timber Industry’s Big Problem
Helen Yaffe
Cuban Workers Celebrate Salary Rise From New Economic Measures
Brian Cloughley
What You Don’t Want to be in Trump’s America
David Underhill
The Inequality of Equal Pay
David Macaray
Adventures in Script-Writing
David Rosen
Say Goodbye to MAD, But Remember the Fight for Free Expression
Nick Pemberton
This Is Heaven!: A Journey to the Pearly Gates with Chuck Mertz
Dan Bacher
Chevron’s Oil Spill Endangers Kern County
J.P. Linstroth
A Racist President and Racial Trauma
Binoy Kampmark
Spying on Julian Assange
Rose Ramirez – Dedrick Asante-Mohammad
A Trump Plan to Throw 50,000 Kids Out of Their Schools
David Bravo
Precinct or Neighborhood? How Barcelona Keeps Rolling Out the Red Carpet for Global Capital
Ralph Nader
Will Any Disgusted Republicans Challenge Trump in the Primaries?
Dave Lindorff
The BS about Medicare-for-All Has to Stop!
Arnold August
Why the Canadian Government is Bullying Venezuela
Tom Clifford
China and the Swine Flu Outbreak
Missy Comley Beattie
Highest Anxiety
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail