Officials: DNA tests clear man convicted of girl's '92 murder

in all facets of govt.

too many innocent people are convicted and sent to jail. They are coerced into confessing, they have lousy legal representation, or they don't know how to prove their innocence. This is especially true of minorities, who are disproportionately represented in prisons.

Jay

Google "Chicago Police Department Commander Jon Burge" and see what you get once. And then you have people like my own father who has sat on numerous juries and has told me that "they wouldn't be on trial if they weren't guilty". He is serious too.

Don

One thing I find interesting when debating the DP with supporters of it is that they usually put qualifiers on their support. As in: "We should be more careful..." etc. Yet at the same time, they defend it as it is practiced in this country, which is one of the worst justice systems in the western world in regards to the Death Penalty. I asked a question of these supporters, they have yet to answer: Do you support the Death Penalty in the United States as it is practiced today?

I hate this "Pie in the Sky" Utopian BS about the DP, it is simply not practical to restrict it in manners they talk about, two different standards of evidence or other things. Better to ban it entirely today, there is no reason to keep a system that kills innocents unnecessarily. Admit that it is either corrupt or imperfect and move on, we should all work to correct the mistakes, and make sure the mistakes are correctable in the first place.

eom

I still shudder when I think of the interview with the justice from the Texas supreme court that was in a Frontline episode on the death penalty. "Just because some DNA evidence exonerates this person of this particular crime, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be executed." After all, they're probably guilty of SOMETHING, right?

does not exist!

:-)

At least in this instance we can correct our mistake. Once we toast them, well that's it.

by the exposure's of DNA evidence? Sounds like many were railroaded by over zealous prosecutors and sloppy police work.

n/t

they don't care who is guilty or innocent. The convictions look good on their records when they run for political office. I have seen this first hand more than once. They will lie and cover up information when it goes to court and if you don't have the money for good lawers and you aren't smart enough to do your own investigating, you might as well kiss your ass good bye in our legal system.

That may be true of ambitious prosecutors, or those who don't have enough integrity to stand upright, but it isn't true of all prosecutors.

Believe me, I've worked within their arena and watched them in action, close up. Many of them are honorable and are prosecutors because they are tired of people getting away with crimes. To prosecute and convict the innocent goes against their grain. I have a bigger problem with defense lawyers who "only want to win" and will do anything to hide evidence of guilt, no matter how heinous the crime.

That being said, people rarely notice how faulty the criminal legal system is (I don't refer to it as criminal justice system) until they or someone they know falls through its cracks. It's horrifying, and politics is the main reason why.

And all I can speak to is my personal experience when my sister decided to leave her abusive husband and the resulting charges against my husband when we decided to let them take refuge in our home.

I can't help but wonder if he would still be alive today if the stress of the legal fight and the indebtedness it caused us. I was not in anyway defending defense lawyers as I found myself investigating this case and locating the witnesses of the state after being lied to by prosecutors.

Locating the witness was instrumental in having those charges dismissed against my husband or he would be serving a life sentence if he were alive today.

Several years ago, a coworker of mine was assigned as editor of a federal task force report on eyewitness testimony -- this was in the wake of the O.J. Simpson forensic evidence nightmare. Different committees were in charge of developing the content for each section. She came back amazed at some of the vehement comments from prosecutors and police -- and these were representatives of national organizations -- to the effect of "if we can't lead witnesses during the interview process, we'll never be able to get a convictions." They had no issues with the fact that this creates incredibly unreliable witnesses, and that innocent people might be wrongly arrested and convicted on the basis of this evidence.

but after reading articles on or watching interviews with lawyers involved in "The Innocence Project", I`m more convinced than ever.

Some death row inmates can not even begin to prove their innocence for lack of the money it takes for a DNA test.

Government sponsored killings are barbaric.

In order to "solve" the crime the cops are willing to help convict an innocent brown skinned person -- Juan Rivera I assume is not white.

Their job is supposed to be finding the person and make sure that he doesn't kill again. But it seems they are more interested in a "conviction" score than in truth and protecting the public.

How many others have died since 1992? Killed by the same person who killed the 11 year old girl? Was this a serial killer who moves around the country killing? Most often the hit and run serial killer can continue because some police departments don't recognize the pattern.

Not much seems to have changed since the Zodiac Killer was active in the S.F. Bay area in the late 60s and early 70s.

and that makes it all to easy to end up with an innocent scapegoat. Juries are too easily swayed into giving the death penalty based on the emotional impact of the case instead of the quality of the evidence.

innocent people there are in the prison systems today. Too many people cannot afford a lawyer, and those that can, too often get a substandard lawyer. The Public Defenders are absolutely overwhelmed by far too many cases and often encourage those accused to accept a plea bargain whether they are guilty or not.

Too many in the criminal divisions of law enforcement tend to become very judgemental and seriously jaded. They have an "everyone's guilty of something" type attitude and are unable to see exculpatory evidence for what it is when they have made up their minds to someone's guilt.

I think perhaps those working in the criminal law should be rotated out on a regular basis to save their objectivity. And Public Defenders should be funded to have at least the same number of lawyers and investigators as does the (publicly funded) prosecution side.

.
.
.

Our Justice systems are NOT infallible

so to be "just"

we must allow for the possibility of wrongful convictions

The death penalty just ferments the blood-lust of some . . .

like

oh

the leader of the most powerful nation on earth

we got problems . . .

(sigh)

If. IF???????

We are truly mad. This man should be out now.

But what the hell can you expect when the Supreme Court of the United States says that as long as a person has had the full process, they can even be executed despite new evidence that they're factually innocent.

Even before he ran for president, I detested Bush because, as far as I'm concerned, he murdered this poor kid:

Gary Graham Texas Convicted 1981 Executed 2000
On June 23, 2000, Gary Graham was executed in Texas, despite claims that he was innocent. Graham was 17 when he was charged with the 1981 robbery and shooting of Bobby Lambert outside a Houston supermarket. He was convicted primarily on the testimony of one witness, Bernadine Skillern, who said she saw the killer's face for a few seconds through her car windshield, from a distance of 30 -40 feet away. Two other witnesses, both who worked at the grocery store and said they got a good look at the assailant, said Graham was not the killer but were never interviewed by Graham's court appointed attorney, Ronald Mock, and were not called to testify at trial. Three of the jurors who voted to convict Graham signed affidavits saying they would have voted differently had all of the evidence been available.

this guy has been a petty criminal all his adult life. He has, according to the news I have read, on two occasions did things to get his pervert status: he exposed himself to a child years ago and years later, fondled a child. At 46 years of age, he graduates to murder?
Somehow, it doesn't ring true to me.

So even if his confession WAS coerced, there's still soem pretty damning evidence.

Take a lifelong sexual predator of children, maybe throw in some coke or meth, and murder's not too far away.

BTW, exposing oneself to children and fondling kids is by most standards sexual predation. And those are just the times he was caught and convicted for.

Many people were jumping in saying that someone who confessed didn't even need a trial, they would gladly execute themselves (after some emotionally satisfying torture), etc. This case shows the problem with that thinking - we have no way of being sure a confession has not been gained by coercion or manipulation. Confessions are not a guarantee of guilt.

And I'm not being misty-eyed. One of the reasons is that the common law system which is used in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia etc is procedure-based. As long as the procedures are sound then your guilt is sound. For mine that's not good enough. Common law jurisdictions should look at the inquisitorial system in Europe and learn from it.