is there any way to check if a LEO is really on duty even though he is not in uniform

[Bill of Rights]

Uh, if a jury says not guilty...you are not guilty.

What you described is a failure of the justice system. If someone is guilty, the jury returns guilty. If they are innocent, they return innocent. This is merely a play to emotion and quite shallow. What would you change about our justice system? Should the jury not be allowed to issue a verdict in a rape or murder case?

It sounds as if you simply don't like lawyers or don't believe in our justice system. Are we throwing out that whole jury of your peers thing?

I might agree with you if juries actually heard ALL the evidence in every case.

If a police officer got somewhat overzealous in his pursuit of the truth... Let's say, for example, that an officer has no PC to search your vehicle but does so anyway. In the course of his search, he finds a dead body in the trunk and the knife that caused the wounds on that body in the back seat, complete with your fingerprints in blood on the hilt. Let's go out on a limb and say that there's even a signed confession to the crime next to the body, in your handwriting.

Obviously, the above is not only extreme but also wholly hypothetical, and I'm not at all defending illegal searches, but while none of that evidence would be admissible, it should be clear that the hypothetical "you" above is, in fact, guilty of the crime. Barring a body, murder weapon, confession, in fact any evidence at all, no jury could find the accused guilty, but that would not change the fact.

There was discussion during the OJ Simpson trial of evidence being excluded for a variety of reasons. As a result, his murder jury found him "not guilty" and there were many "jokes" about him being as innocent as money can buy.

I don't know that there is a solution to this situation, given the reasons why evidence can be excluded, but I think I've successfully demonstrated why a jury finding of "not guilty" is not the same thing as an accused being "innocent".

Blessings,
Bill

 

[UncleMike]

It's actually not semantic. It's a very important analytical distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent." It is not the duty of the trier of fact to determine innocence. Your "FBI agent" teacher was wrong.

I'll be sure to pass that along.
Law Professors love it when a Neo Lawyer corrects them.
Mike

 

[level.eleven]

I don't know that there is a solution to this situation, given the reasons why evidence can be excluded, but I think I've successfully demonstrated why a jury finding of "not guilty" is not the same thing as an accused being "innocent".

Blessings,
Bill

Yes, if I confused the points of a not guilty verdict, and actual innocence, I apologize. That is certainly not what I intended. Apparently, I am simply unaware of how little faith law enforcement, not a blanket but those in this thread, have in our system of justice. It also has become apparent to me that people view the justice system differently depending what side they are on. Government employees tend to favor heavier handed prosecution and tend to look the other way from prosecutorial misconduct, paying witnesses, etc. While civilians tend to focus on the defense side of the equation quite a bit more.

 

[JBusch8899]

I'll be sure to pass that along.
Law Professors love it when a Neo Lawyer corrects them.
Mike

I would much rather prefer if the trolls would not make a response to any of my stated positions upon an argument, despite the fact that they might agree with me.

Not only does is cause me to cringe that I might have something in common with such vermin, but they often attach circular logic, or insulting commentary to a well thought argument.

 

[JBusch8899]

Yes, if I confused the points of a not guilty verdict, and actual innocence, I apologize. That is certainly not what I intended. Apparently, I am simply unaware of how little faith law enforcement, not a blanket but those in this thread, have in our system of justice. It also has become apparent to me that people view the justice system differently depending what side they are on. Government employees tend to favor heavier handed prosecution and tend to look the other way from prosecutorial misconduct, paying witnesses, etc. While civilians tend to focus on the defense side of the equation quite a bit more.

Having been on both sides, I believe that my view is considerably more balanced and more objective than those who have participated exclusively on one side of the law.

Within the criminal justice aspects, please remember that there are trade offs in everything.

• The prosecution has the advantage of the opening and closing of arguments; but also has the burden to prove the guilt of the crime, by meeting each and every element of the applied statute.
• The defense has access to all the prosecution's evidence, save attorney work product. The prosecution has virtually, save a few exceptions, little access to the defense's evidence.

Even an outright pardon granted by an executive branch of government, is not implicit of innocence. It has the full force and effect of dismissal of charges with prejudice, or a finding of not guilty, but does not convey or otherwise convey innocence.

Findings in civil actions find liability, or relieve the Respondent of liability. Again, no claim to innocence.

The only action that I can ever recall to bring such a thinking, is an outright apology or finding, from a official or official body, attributing a gross miscarriage of justice in such a pursuit. While this may be considered to be more dicta in the overall scheme, this is the closest that one will ever be to being "exonerated."

 

[level.eleven]

What type of company is that? What is involved in "doing" a rape case?

I find it amusing that you accuse me of introducing "emotional drivel" into this topic which quite obviously stirs emotions on every front. Oh wait, I forgot, everyone wants an emotionless robot for a police officer until it's time to show some pitty on themselves for speeding, smoking dope, drunk driving or beating their wife. Then, and only then are we supposed to show emotion at any level.

This isn't the system I voted for. It isn't a problem with a specific Sheriff, judge or prosecutor. The entire system has been perverted for the past hundred years and I feel strongly that the men who put this system in place would be quite disgusted by it's current state.

This particular statement "The prosecutor must be awful if he can't get a conviction on the theft of all my guns. The officer filing the accident report for the drunk that smashed my car must have really botched if we can't get a conviction." demonstrates clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about and have very little experience in a criminal courtroom. As I said earlier, it's quite different from what you see on CSI.

I do feel as if I'm "fighting" liberals in a sense but not when I'm at work. Liberals are largely responsible for the ridiculous state of our society and I do what I can to "convert" them to sensibility whenever I have an opportunity.

Like I've always said, nothing converts a liberal to conservatism faster than becoming the victim of a violent crime. That's when the rose colored glasses come off and reality sets in. Enjoy your glasses, hopefully you'll get to keep them.

There is a quite we actually agree upon. First, I certainly don't want pity to be shown in victim crimes like the wife beater you mentioned. Aggression against another person or their property should certainly be met with swift justice. The enforcement of victimless crimes, like your pot smoking example, is something we are probably not going to see eye to eye on. I would much prefer our justice system focus on more serious crime and free up these resources to pursue those crimes and repair the system.

I also share your disdain for the justice system. Like I said in response to Bill, as a civilian, I am going to be more critical of the prosecution than the defense. I think that is only a natural reaction. Being a law enforcer, you certainly have spent more time in a courtroom than I. If that weren't the case we would have a real problem because I would either be a trial lawyer, or one really, really bad man. As an aside, I have never watched any of the courtroom dramas. I simply don't watch TV or movies.

That being said, I think we both agree that the system can use some tweaking - probably a lot more than a tweak. Violent crime and property crime should be a top priority.

I certainly don't wear any rose colored glasses, but yet have not been the victim of a violent crime. But, as I stated, violent crime and property crimes should be punished swiftly. Personally, I put thieves just slightly above murderers. I. Hate. Thieves. Stealing the fruits of my labor isn't much difference than stealing my life as I put my life into the pursuit of said fruit.

My company comment was, in effect, not very well thought out. I was quickly lumping LE into the entire process from beginning to end. Further thought has led me to a different conclusion and I think I am accurately receiving your message now. You go out and bust hump and catch a dirtbag stealing a car, or whatever. Slick defense lawyer woos the jury with a sob case and the guy gets off or receives a lesser sentence. You are now offended because you did your part in the apprehension, but the justice part failed and you (or any officer, I have just been using the generic "you" here) then feel slighted and possibly feel your contribution was wasted. This would anger me as well and my opinion of the system would falter.

Hope that is a better response. Sometimes I get to emotional for something as silly as arguing on the interwebs.

Stay safe and have a great weekend.

 

[downzero]

I might agree with you if juries actually heard ALL the evidence in every case.

If a police officer got somewhat overzealous in his pursuit of the truth... Let's say, for example, that an officer has no PC to search your vehicle but does so anyway. In the course of his search, he finds a dead body in the trunk and the knife that caused the wounds on that body in the back seat, complete with your fingerprints in blood on the hilt. Let's go out on a limb and say that there's even a signed confession to the crime next to the body, in your handwriting.

Obviously, the above is not only extreme but also wholly hypothetical, and I'm not at all defending illegal searches, but while none of that evidence would be admissible, it should be clear that the hypothetical "you" above is, in fact, guilty of the crime. Barring a body, murder weapon, confession, in fact any evidence at all, no jury could find the accused guilty, but that would not change the fact.

There was discussion during the OJ Simpson trial of evidence being excluded for a variety of reasons. As a result, his murder jury found him "not guilty" and there were many "jokes" about him being as innocent as money can buy.

I don't know that there is a solution to this situation, given the reasons why evidence can be excluded, but I think I've successfully demonstrated why a jury finding of "not guilty" is not the same thing as an accused being "innocent".

Blessings,
Bill

You really don't have to worry about that factual situation ever happening. The actual application of the exclusionary rule is very narrow.

 

[level.eleven]

Just as follow up to some previous post, I saw this article come across the wire today.

NYCLU Applauds State Senate Vote to Shut Down NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Database | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State

Since 2004, the NYPD has stopped and interrogated people nearly 3 million times, and the names and addresses of those stopped have been entered into the department’s database, regardless of whether the person had done anything wrong. Last year, NYPD officers stopped and questioned or frisked people more than 575,000 times, the most ever. Nearly nine out of 10 of those stopped and questioned by police last year were neither arrested nor issued a summons. And more than 80 percent were black or Latino.

Basically, the state senate is allowing the policy to continue, but the innocent citizens will not be entered into the database anymore. Small steps.

 

[downzero]

Just as follow up to some previous post, I saw this article come across the wire today.

NYCLU Applauds State Senate Vote to Shut Down NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Database | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State

Since 2004, the NYPD has stopped and interrogated people nearly 3 million times, and the names and addresses of those stopped have been entered into the department’s database, regardless of whether the person had done anything wrong. Last year, NYPD officers stopped and questioned or frisked people more than 575,000 times, the most ever. Nearly nine out of 10 of those stopped and questioned by police last year were neither arrested nor issued a summons. And more than 80 percent were black or Latino.

Basically, the state senate is allowing the policy to continue, but the innocent citizens will not be entered into the database anymore. Small steps.

Wow. Someone should go to jail for this.