17 yrs. in prison for murder they didn't do.

[DragonGunner]

I've heard this too many times now. I think somebody needs to go to jail....like the ones who didn't do their jobs when arresting her, a overzealous prosecutor and a lying witness......



Exclusive: 17 years in prison for a murder she didn't commit

 

[HoughMade]

I learned on INGO that all murderers need to have very limited appeals and should be executed quickly.

Insert purple as desired.

 

[GTM]

I've heard this too many times now. I think somebody needs to go to jail....like the ones who didn't do their jobs when arresting her, a overzealous prosecutor and a lying witness......



Exclusive: 17 years in prison for a murder she didn't commit

These kind of stories are what has changed my position from pro death penalty, to anti-death penalty.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What a nightmare.

Like to know what happened at trial. Non-disclosure of CIs past behavior? Hard to tell.

Taking an innocent to trial is terrifying. First innocent I took to trial I woke up at 2 or 3AM and got sick the week before the trial. Fortunately it only took the jury 20 minutes to see through the nonsense.

 

[HoughMade]

These kind of stories are what has changed my position from pro death penalty, to anti-death penalty.

Same here.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

These kind of stories are what has changed my position from pro death penalty, to anti-death penalty.

Yes and no for me. In cases where the accused was "caught red-handed" or freely admitted their guilt (ironically enough usually to avoid the death penalty), then I'm for it.

 

[DRob]

They used to say if you know you're guilty, ask for a jury trial but if you're innocent ask for a bench trial. While this appears to run contrary to that concept, I think it bolsters the idea that you never know what a jury may do.

I wonder what's going through the mind of the attorney who defended her.

 

[DragonGunner]

They used to say if you know you're guilty, ask for a jury trial but if you're innocent ask for a bench trial. While this appears to run contrary to that concept, I think it bolsters the idea that you never know what a jury may do.

I wonder what's going through the mind of the attorney who defended her.

Or the the judge that allowed a known lying witness to testify.....rail roaded for sure, you would think by 1997 we would be beyond this kind of thing.

I'm not against the death penalty or life without parole in certain cases.....what I would like to see is some kind of nation wide council that anytime a case of murder and conviction comes up this independent class of judges, lawyers and such would be able to review it.....in this case she would of got a new trial for sure, but because she had no lawyer, all her appeals were turned down.

 

[spencer rifle]

Having been on a capital murder jury before, we went through a very thorough voir dire process where they attempted to weed out anyone who couldn't support the death penalty. We started off with a pool of 60 potential jurors and ended up with 2 or 3 left at the end. It was one set of drug dealers attempting to rob another, and there wasn't much doubt by the evidence, and that the other defendant was already convicted (we didn't know that at the time). First time I got to handle a Cobray - not impressed. We were sequestered for verdict and again for sentencing, which ended up at life without parole. No one was really gung-ho for the death penalty. The judge later complimented us on our thoroughness and calmness.

I can see how it only takes a few hotheads to throw the whole deliberations process into chaos.

I am for the death penalty but am also for the opportunity for those who oppose it to put their money where their mouth is and pay for the permanent incarceration of the convicted with their own money for as long as necessary.

 

[eric001]

What kind of defense attorney lets the testimony of a known pathological liar stand unchallenged in court? Especially in a murder case??

You'd think he'd at least have watched My Cousin Vinny a couple of times to learn how to find inconsistencies in testimony...

Of course, having actual evidence pointing to her guilt would have been nice before prosecuting her in the first place. IANAL, but I always thought for some odd reason that the jury was supposed to decide on guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" or something like that. It looks like this case was overwhelmed by layers of fail.

I'm all for the death penalty over lifetime without parole if and when the convictee was caught red-handed/recorded committing the crime or has an unarguable evidence trail detailing their guilt. I would never support such a case based on hear-say with no hard evidence. And convicting in a case based on the testimony of a known liar??? Insanity.

 

[david890]

I am for the death penalty but am also for the opportunity for those who oppose it to put their money where their mouth is and pay for the permanent incarceration of the convicted with their own money for as long as necessary.

You do realize, of course, that it costs much, much more - in terms of trial(s), appeals, etc. - when someone is sentenced to death as opposed to life w/o parole? Perhaps not....

 

[sadclownwp]

You do realize, of course, that it costs much, much more - in terms of trial(s), appeals, etc. - when someone is sentenced to death as opposed to life w/o parole? Perhaps not....

That is an old wives tale. Show some solid figures proving it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of there lives. Maybe if they are 65 years old already it might be cheaper, but not if they are 18.

 

[Darral27]

You do realize, of course, that it costs much, much more - in terms of trial(s), appeals, etc. - when someone is sentenced to death as opposed to life w/o parole? Perhaps not....

The only reason this is true is because of all the appeals they get and last I saw I believe the average time spent on death row was 17 years. That kind of defeats the purpose. IMO if there is DNA evidence, video evidence, multiple dependable witnesses, why waste all that time. Police could and in many cases have made major errors, DNA and video do not lie. If you have evidence to be 100% sure kill em, no need in all the appeal BS, just a waste of money.
Just to be clear I also believe the death penalty should be expanded to admitted or multiple victim child molesters.

 

[david890]

...I always thought for some odd reason that the jury was supposed to decide on guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" or something like that. It looks like this case was overwhelmed by layers of fail.

I'm all for the death penalty over lifetime without parole if and when the convictee was caught red-handed/recorded committing the crime or has an unarguable evidence trail detailing their guilt. I would never support such a case based on hear-say with no hard evidence. And convicting in a case based on the testimony of a known liar??? Insanity.

I've seen numerous stories in which jurors have stated that they were so tired of the whole process, they voted guilty just to go home.

The problem lies with our adversarial style of law enforcement, coupled with juries who simply don't know any better. Such a system was fine 200 years ago, when jurors were typically the learned elite. Today, however, jurors are overwhelmed by the details of the science presented, or, more often, rely on nonsense they've seen on TV and take at face value.

I'd prefer the following type of legal system:

1) A tribunal instead of a single judge. Less chance of ass-hattery when 2 sane judges can over-rule the idiot.
2) Prosecutor and Defense Attorney are selected from a pool of lawyers and won't know which side they'll represent until a day or two prior to trial. Having to prepare for both sides would make one intimately familiar with all aspects and evidence. That pool would be composed of all practicing attorneys in a particular region, and should a lawyer perform poorly, as judged by the tribunal, their license could be revoked and the case retried. This might require an extra year or two of legal school for Criminal and Trial procedures, but so be it if such travesties and prosecutor misconduct can be avoided.
3) Professional jurors. A person could attend a 3-4 year college program that would include a solid grounding in forensic science and basic law. They would be more expensive, but they'd be far more knowledgeable of how a trial should proceed, and how to consider evidence from self-proclaimed "experts" than your average jury.
4) An "expert" witness could be called, randomly, by either the DA or the defense. As with randomization of lawyers, requiring someone to prepare for both sides of a case should reduce bias. Also, such witnesses would have to demonstrate expertise (such as numerous publications in peer-reviewed journals, authors of widely-accepted textbooks, etc.) to qualify.
5) If it is found that evidence was hidden by either side, or there was some other misconduct by the cops or lawyers involved, those folks would face the same penalty as the accused. As it stands now, about the worst a Prosecutor could get for railroading an innocent person is disbarment. Since such misconduct usually appears after 2 or 3 decades, the lawyer or cops involved are often retired, so it doesn't matter to them. Spending their retirement behind bars might change their behavior.

Such a system would be costly, but when an appeal of a death sentence runs $1M and up (or 20 years worth of average prison costs), weeding out the questionable cases would pay for itself in the end, not to mention saving an innocent person from a life behind bars. Also, such a system might only come into play when a Prosecutor pushes for the death penalty; it's not needed for every case.

 

[david890]

The only reason this is true is because of all the appeals they get and last I saw I believe the average time spent on death row was 17 years. That kind of defeats the purpose. IMO if there is DNA evidence, video evidence, multiple dependable witnesses, why waste all that time. Police could and in many cases have made major errors, DNA and video do not lie. If you have evidence to be 100% sure kill em, no need in all the appeal BS, just a waste of money.

Well, so much for that whole "Constitution" thingee!!!

Of course, you're assuming that the DNA and video evidence was properly handled throughout the entire evidence chain!! Do you believe there's absolutely no way for someone to switch samples, destroy evidence or simply fake the results? What about so-called "experts" who mis-interpret evidence? Also, we know that there really is no such thing as "dependable witnesses"; this has been shown in many. many scientific studies. Finally, we know that prosecutors have given breaks to felons who will testify against other felons, so their testimony is obviously flawed! Such deals should be prohibited.

Get rid of those areas of doubt and I might be willing to limit someone's right to appeal. I would never eliminate that right.

 

[david890]

That is an old wives tale. Show some solid figures proving it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of there lives. Maybe if they are 65 years old already it might be cheaper, but not if they are 18.

Here you go:

Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center

Death Penalty : The High Cost of the Death Penalty

Considering The Death Penalty: Your Tax Dollars At Work - Forbes


Now, please provide hard numbers that show the costs to be the same. If you cannot, then it's not "an old wive's tale", is it???

 

[Darral27]

Well, so much for that whole "Constitution" thingee!!!

Of course, you're assuming that the DNA and video evidence was properly handled throughout the entire evidence chain!! Do you believe there's absolutely no way for someone to switch samples, destroy evidence or simply fake the results? What about so-called "experts" who mis-interpret evidence? Also, we know that there really is no such thing as "dependable witnesses"; this has been shown in many. many scientific studies. Finally, we know that prosecutors have given breaks to felons who will testify against other felons, so their testimony is obviously flawed! Such deals should be prohibited.

Get rid of those areas of doubt and I might be willing to limit someone's right to appeal. I would never eliminate that right.

The constitution guarantees a fair trial and a jury of peers.
Are you saying police regularly switch samples of DNA, destroy evidence and fake results? I would like to see what backs up your information. If that is the case that is a problem of who we hire to run our justice system.
I did not say take away anyone's right to an attorney or a fair trial. I don't recall anything in "that whole constitution thingee" about 20 years of appeals.
I do agree with you about prohibiting deals to shorten 1 felons sentence in exchange for testifying against another felon. I have posted many times my feeling regarding snitches.
There is such thing as a dependable witness. There are people who testify in trial that have nothing to lose and nothing to gain.

 

[sadclownwp]

Since there was no hard number breakdown in a single one of those links. I will leave you with this.

https://www.fed-soc.org/publication...re-than-life-in-prison-show-them-this-article

Also, the states are not taking in as much money from death penalties as they could be. That stuff should be televised, advertising should be sold for it to recoup some of the losses on state funds. People should be able to bid to throw the switch, press the button, pull the trigger, whatever the method. People would pay for that stuff, prolly large amounts of money.

 

[david890]

Are you saying police regularly switch samples of DNA, destroy evidence and fake results?

"Regularly"? Of course not. But to claim it never, or has never, happened is just as ridiculous.

I don't recall anything in "that whole constitution thingee" about 20 years of appeals.

Nor does the Constitution PROHIBIT such appeals. That being said, I suspect the "20 years of appeals" stems from cases in which a suspect is tried, found guilty and sentenced, then appeals through several levels of the system. Such appeals find fault with the original trial, and so the process begins again, with the possibility of NEW faults arising in the re-trial, and it begins again. As long as it can be shown the State is at fault, the Defendant should be able to exercise every option available. Perhaps we should take overzealous and unscrupulous cops and DAs to task for causing the errors in the first place!!!

There is such thing as a dependable witness.

Citations, please.

IMHO, prosecutors are too focused on getting A conviction (anyone they can pin it on and convince a jury) instead of getting THE conviction (the true culprit). Unfortunately, we as a society seem to support such behaviors.

 

[david890]

Since there was no hard number breakdown in a single one of those links. I will leave you with this.

https://www.fed-soc.org/publication...re-than-life-in-prison-show-them-this-article

Also, the states are not taking in as much money from death penalties as they could be. That stuff should be televised, advertising should be sold for it to recoup some of the losses on state funds. People should be able to bid to throw the switch, press the button, pull the trigger, whatever the method. People would pay for that stuff, prolly large amounts of money.

No, there wasn't a "hard number breakdown" in those links, so therefore the claims of those linked articles are absolutely bogus. That's your position? Okay, let's see YOUR "hard numbers" showing otherwise. IMHO, statements such as:

"Defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not sought, according to a new study by the Kansas Judicial Council"

"A new study of the cost of the death penalty in Colorado revealed that capital proceedings requiresix times more days in court and take much longer to resolve than life-without-parole (LWOP) cases"

"The authors calculated that, if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years."

are BASED on "hard numbers", not supposition by the authors (obviously, the authors would be hammered by DP supporters for any lack of "raw data"). Typically authors don't publish raw data in a report or article, but will make their data available to those who ask. If I really had the desire, I could obtain the original reports from which those claims were made. Can you find any studies (raw data included, please!) that refute those claims? I doubt it.

BTW, the link you supplied has no raw data to support the claims of its author! Also, the author notes the following as reasons for increased costs:

"Frivolous claims of newly discovered evidence; insipid allegations of ineffective trial and direct appeal counsel; and false allegations of government misconduct."

These issues are endemic to the legal system, not just DP cases!! Some thug busted for armed robbery will likely try to use all three in his appeals, so why should we expect anything different when one's life is on the line?