Judge tosses conviction after man spends 18 years in the slammer

A Manhattan judge tossed out a murder case today against a man imprisoned for nearly 20 years, declaring that he was innocent after a witness lied about him being the shooter.

Fernando Bermudez, 40, wept inside a downtown courtroom as Supreme Court Justice John Cataldo took the bizarre step of not only overturning his 1992 conviction, but dismissing the charges altogether. Bermudez has "demonstrated his actual innocence,” Cataldo said. “This court wishes to express its profound regret over the past 18 years. I hope for you a better future.”

He remains behind bars for now because of a seperate federal drug-sale conviction that carried a 27-month sentence. His lawyers plan to ask federal authorities to credit him for the time he has served and release him immediately.

“This is too long, but justice is ours today,” his wife, Crystal, told reporters outside court as she wiped away tears.

The August 1991 shooting involved 16-year-old Raymond Blount, who was gunned down as he left a nightspot near Union Square after getting into a fight with another teen inside the club. Another teen identified Bermudez as the gunman and four bystanders fingered him from police photograph files and then a police lineup.

The judge's ruling bars a retrial. The Manhattan DA's office said it would not pursue one because several witnesses have since recanted and would no longer testify. Prosecutors, however, said they still believe Bermudez is guilty and are examining their options, including filing an appeal. “We strongly disagree with the judge’s decision,” said Chief Assistant DA Mark Dwyer. “We don’t think the defense has shown that there was anything wrong with the verdict.”

Bermudez’ lawyers presented evidence that the witnesses had improperly consulted each other before picking him from the lineup. The judge said that one of the teens involved in the fight, who testified against Bermudez under an agreement sparing him criminal charges, delivered “a total fabrication” on the witness stand

Original report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts on Wicked Thoughts Archive

  ¶ 5:34 PM 0 comments links to this post

 

Facebook 'pancakes' alibi gets jailed New York teen freed

NYC again. Incredible that such a small thing could make such a big difference. What does it say about the other evidence in the case? One accusation was believed in spite of multiple alibis. Sounds like he was seen as guilty because he was black. This deserves a full inquiry but it won't get one in NYC. This is one occasion when sharpie Sharpton could make himself really useful

Pass the syrup -- this lucky guy is eating breakfast at home instead of on Rikers Island. A Brooklyn teen's playful Facebook message to his pregnant girlfriend about pancakes sprung him from jail and helped him avoid years in prison for a holdup he didn't commit.

Prosecutors dropped a robbery charge against Rodney Bradford, 19, after learning his Facebook account status had been updated with the inside joke "WHERE MY IHOP?" from a computer in his dad's Harlem apartment one minute before an Oct. 17 stickup of two men in Brooklyn's Farragut Houses.

"They had me on Rikers Island for 12 days. It was really miserable," Bradford told The Post last night. "If it wasn't for Facebook I'd still be on Rikers Island."

His joyful stepmom, Ernestine Bradford, agreed, saying. "Facebook saved my son," she said. "Normally, we yell at our kids, 'Oh, you're on the computer!" It's completely different. If it wasn't for Facebook, my son wouldn't be here."

The electronic fingerprints from Bradford's Facebook posting backed up multiple witnesses who said he was at his dad's home that day, and knocked down a victim's claim that he recognized one of the robbers as Bradford, who lives in Farragut Houses.

"This was just a very strong alibi," said Bradford's lawyer, Robert Reuland. "It reflects the pervasiveness that Web sites and social networking has on our lives."

Original report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts on Wicked Thoughts Archive

  ¶ 7:58 PM 0 comments links to this post

 

Man is confronted by NY police for apparently committing the crime of free speech on public property

Police arrested a freelance videographer and confiscated the memory card from his camera while he was recording FIJA activist Julian Heicklen Monday. The videographer, who goes by the name of "bile," was standing on public property at the time. Heicklen, for the fourth Monday (jury selection day) in a row, was passing out the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) pamphlets, “A Primer for Prospective Jurors” at the federal courthouse in New York City.

After police briefly spoke to Heicklen and left, bile approached him and conducted a short interview. As he explained on the Free Talk Live radio call-in show that evening, bile had heard about Julian's previous activism and arrests and decided to support him by acting as a witness.

The police, with additional officers, returned and asked Heicklen to leave. He declined, so they announced he was under arrest. As Heicklen always does, he dropped to the ground and went limp and silent.

It was then that Police confronted bile with his digital camcorder. When bile informed them that, "I was working for Free Talk Live," they said he was under arrest for breaking a federal statute that regulates what people on federal property may photograph. Bile was told he was guilty of photographing "without permission."

After convincing the police to take only his memory card "for evidence" rather than his camera, and accepting a receipt for it and a citation for his offense, bile was released. Meanwhile, police confiscated Heicklen's remaining FIJA brochures, his JURY INFO sign, and left him a receipt and a citation.

Joel Kupferman, a lawyer and Executive Director of the New York Environmental Law & Justice Project, appeared at the scene and observed the events. An NBC reporter was also noted to be present.

For the first time in four trips to the courthouse to hand out FIJA fliers, Heicklen was released rather than arrested and then transported to a psychiatric hospital.

Articles covering Heicklen's previous efforts can be read at the Libertarian News Examiner. Also, Heicklen always writes his own reports on the day's events and Len Flynn always posts them in their entirety on the New Jersey Libertarian Party homepage. Bile also wrote and posted his own detailed account of his encounter with the American police state, "Arrested for filming the arrest of Julian Heicklen on federal property."

But bile was one step ahead of the police. As he revealed in his report on Free Talk Live (he's in the second half of the broadcast), "I had a little spycam that I had tucked in my belt that was recording the whole time just in case something happened with my camcorder." Bile's spycam video can be seen at blog of bile. Bile also escaped with his audio interview of Heicklen and it is posted on the same blog page just below the video.

In an email to his growing number of supporters nationwide, Heicklen explained the motivation behind his actions. "Originally, I went to the US District Court in Manhattan to inform juries of their rights. For me this is now the secondary issue. The primary issue has become freedom of speech. Jury nullification has become the vehicle to reclaim this right."

However, a growing number of supporters have been responding to Heicklen's call to action. The presence of bile, Joel Kupferman and the NBC reporter are part of that response.

Original report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts on Wicked Thoughts Archive

  ¶ 4:18 PM 0 comments links to this post

 

Perverted British justice again

More than 100 rapists have been let off with a police caution, it was revealed yesterday. The 111 cases included 66 incidents of child rape. The extent to which police forces have handed cautions to rapists, whose crime carries a maximum sentence of life in jail, was made public as Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced a full-scale review of the system of punishing crime with cautions and on-the-spot fines.

Mr Straw acted after a weekend when senior police chiefs and the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC called for curbs on the use of out-of-court punishments. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson also condemned the 'uncontrollable increase in cautions' and said that on-the-spot fines, now often used to punish offences such as shoplifting, 'in the public's minds equate to a parking ticket.'

The system of fixed-penalty fines and cautions has been introduced over the past six years as a way to deal with minor crime cheaply and effectively. But the disclosure that cautions have been used repeatedly to deal with rapists is the clearest demonstration that the system is now being used to keep the most serious crimes out of the courts.

The figures released to MPs by the Home Office show numbers of cautions handed to rapists after the 2003 Sexual Offences Act became law in May 2004. Between that date and the end of 2007 there were 45 cases of rape of adults in which the rapist admitted guilt but was released with a caution. In a further 66 cases individuals who admitted raping a child under 13 were freed with a caution.

The figures from the Home Office gave no indication of why police chose to use cautions to punish a crime which, in the case of adult rape, typically attracts a prison sentence of five years. Nor do they say how many rapists have been cautioned rather than tried since 2007. A high proportion of the 66 child rapes may have involved very young offenders, and the offenders in many of the cases of adult rapes may have been intimate partners of the victims.

However no caution can be given in any case except where the suspect admits guilt. Therefore in all 111 cases prosecutors denied the courts an opportunity to examine the evidence and decide on sentencing.

Tory home affairs spokesman James Brokenshire said: 'It is deeply disturbing to think that the rape of a young child could be dealt with by little more than a telling off. The law should protect the vulnerable, yet Labour's caution culture is increasingly letting them down.'

Decisions to allow crimes as serious as rape to be dealt with by cautions are taken by the Crown Prosecution Service rather than police officers, the Ministry of Justice said yesterday. Nevertheless the punishment faced by a rapist who is cautioned does not amount to anything more than two years on the sex offenders' register.

Figures also show cautions proliferating for lesser offences. Last year, according to the BBC's Panorama programme, 39,000 people were cautioned for assault causing actual bodily harm. There were 739 cautions for the much more serious offence of grievous bodily harm. More than half a million offenders have been given repeat cautions since 2000 and in eight years between 2000 and 2008 some 2.2million cautions were handed out in all for crimes, including burglary and assault. Another half million penalty notices for disorder, handed out of drunkenness, shoplifting and similar more minor crimes, were handed out between 2005 and 2007. In half of the cases, the criminal did not pay up. There are also concerns that the penalty notices are now being used for burglary and robbery.

Mr Straw said yesterday that he and Home Secretary Alan Johnson are concerned at the use of out- of- court punishments. He added that a review would be run by the Office of Criminal Justice Reform. He denied the Government had encouraged the use of cautions to reduce the prison population.

Original report here






Rape OK in sick Britain but bad paintwork is serious

A pregnant woman who invited a policewoman into her half- decorated home ended up being reported to social workers for being a potentially unfit mother. Mary Cooke, 27, was visited by police after she called 999 to report that she had nearly been run down by a speeding car. The officer did not mention that she was unhappy about the state of Mrs Cooke's rented house, but after leaving wrote a memo to the social services.

Days later, Mrs Cooke received a letter from Staffordshire County Council, warning her of a potential 'referral' for her unborn child. In addition, the council contacted her midwife.

Last night, Mrs Cooke, a housewife who is 12 weeks' pregnant with her first child, said: 'The letter made me feel sick. I believe someone was judging me for decorating the house and I can't believe it. I'm in the first stages of pregnancy. I'd never dream of bringing a child home to a house being decorated. 'I told the policewoman we are moving in February. We've been renting privately and we had started decorating, then a bigger house came up for rent and we decided to take it. 'But we thought it was only right to finish off what we'd started for the next people who come here.'

Mrs Cooke, of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, added: 'They contacted my midwife behind my back, but apparently she said she had no worries. 'Now they've accepted that the policewoman may have been a little over zealous, so none of this will go against me in the future. They've decided to let the matter rest. 'It seems that the police and social services go from one extreme to another, they either do nothing and a little child dies or they go completely over the top.'

Mrs Cooke was visited by police after ringing to say that she had nearly been run over by a car that went through a red light. During the conversation she told the policewoman she was pregnant. Mrs Cooke said the officer spent five minutes in the hall and living room of her semi-detached home and would have seen the stripped walls and floors. She added: 'I know the wallpaper is off the walls and there were a couple of nails lying around, but the policewoman didn't say anything while she was here. Other expectant couples should be warned: be careful when you let police officers into their homes, because they can be judging you.'

The letter was sent from the council's children's services first response service, in Stafford. It says a referral regarding the unborn child had been made by police. A spokesman for Staffordshire Police said: 'Our officers aim to act in the best interests of everyone they come into contact with. 'Their role can include making sure people get any extra help and support they might need.' [Like having their kids taken off them??? That's "support"???] He declined to confirm whether the officer had referred Mrs Cooke to social services.

Original report here (Via POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts on Wicked Thoughts Archive

  ¶ 4:05 PM 0 comments links to this post

 

This is not your mother’s America … nor your father’s

In The Examiner, Gary Reed reports on the "kidnapping" by law enforcement and forced medication of libertarian activist Julian Heicklen. The synopsis: on Monday and for the 3rd Monday in a row, Heicklen arrived at the US District Courthouse in New York City in order to pass out pamphlets to prospective jurors informing them of "their right to judge the law and its application as well as the facts in a case." Yep...the fully informed jury strategy. Homeland Security police told him to leave; Heicklen said he had a 1st Amendment right to stay. He ended up being forcibly transported to a hospital where he was injected with Thorazine against his will.

To me, the most interesting aspect of Heicklen's story is not the most obvious part. Heicklen is a veteran at civil disobedience and, so, upon being told by police that he was under arrest, he dropped to the ground and went limp as he had done many times in the past. He maintained silence as well.

Reed reports, In the past, he was arrested, handcuffed, placed on a gurney and transported to a hospital where he was examined and eventually released in time to be home later the same day. (Full accounts of this and his first two trips to Manhattan can be read on the New Jersey Libertarian Party website.) But this time something different happened.

This time, Heicklen lay limp on the ground for over an hour. He was not handcuffed, not cited, not read his rights... He was simply hoisted into an ambulance, strapped down and taken to Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital, where he remained unresponsive to questions. As evening drew near, Heicklen explains, "I made a fuss to see someone in charge, so that I could either be released or brought in front of a magistrate. My requests were ignored, and became more persistent. Against my wishes four attendants grabbed me and gave me a shot of Thorazine to calm me down." He was released the next day.

The significant sentence is "this time something different happened." The response of police and others in authority has been changing for some time now; recently, there seems to be a tipping point in the willingness of authorities to use brutality and utterly disregard civil rights. In fact, willnessness may not be the best word. The attitude is more perfunctory as though Heicklen were meat being processed by people jaded in their jobs. The only time he experienced brutality was when he caused a problem, an annoyance; that is, he complained too vigorously at Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital. If he had maintained silence, I expect they would have let him just alone sit in a cell. They would have been content to process him like a good, quiet piece of meat. Equally, had Heicklen acted up with the police by talking back or even by wagging a finger at them, I expect they would have tased him, beaten him down, etc. instead of just hoisting him into the ambulance like the piece of meat he was to them.

This is not your mother's America any more. It is not an America in which the authorities feel a need to even pretend you have rights. Listen to the real lesson of Heicklen's experience: "this time something different happened." The police did not bother going through the motions of issuing a citation or making a formal arrest. The doctors at Bellevue medicated him without consent and probably without any necessity; the hospital held him far longer than on previous occasions. The relationship that individual Americans have with authority is changing...and rapidly so.

BTW, on Tuesday I blogged about the police brutalization of another libertarian who was stopped for a traffic offense. (See Prominent libertarian tased, shot in back by police) I don't mean to imply there is a crackdown on libertarians going on. I think the explanation is different but no happier for that difference. I think there is a great deal more violence and disdain for rights on the part of authorities; I think this trend is going to markedly accelerate. If an unusually high number of libertarians are experiencing brutality -- and I don't know if that is true -- then it is probably because libertarians tend to question authority and otherwise have a bad attitude.

The iron fist has tossed away its velvet glove.

Original report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts on Wicked Thoughts Archive

  ¶ 1:04 PM 0 comments links to this post

 

Manufacturing felons

In an earlier blog post entitled "Sex Offender Pleas for Prison", I wrote, "I would like to be optimistic about a "turn around" in the economy...but I can't be. The rise of homelessness is merely one of about five social factors that (IMO) must "turn around" and sharply so before optimism is justified". A reader wants to know what the other "social factors" or trends are.

I will address them one at a time. Another trend that must sharply reverse in order to allow the economy to heal is a marked increase in the criminalization almost everything. The most pronounced increase has been in 'crimes' that involve children and sex. A zero tolerance policy has resulted in a soaring rate of children being arrested and branded as sex offenders, often for behavior that would have formerly been considered reckless hijinx or hormones. For example, streaking, sexual contact between two pre-18-year-olds, mooning, etc. For sexting their own photos, children are being charged and convicted of distributing and/or possessing child porn. This, despite the fact that a recent study by Peter Cumming, an associate professor at York University in Toronto, the practice to be a modern variation on "playing doctor or spin-the-bottle" and no more harmful than those 'games.' (For more on the surge of children being convicted of sex offenses, see the excellent critique on Classically Liberal.)

The criminalization of the formerly non-criminal extends far beyond what any reasonable person would consider sexual behavior. Consider an earlier blog post entitled "Man arrested for making coffee naked and alone in own kitchen." He was arrested after a woman and her son -- who cut across his property -- looked through his window. The most interesting aspect of the story is that the arresting officer ran the 'crime' past the D.A.'s office before acting. This is interesting because it signals that the arrest was not an aberration or due to a rogue cop. And, when the news story went viral, the official response of the police was not an apology but a ramping up of the case; cops that could have been investigating real crimes were sent instead to conduct mass interviews in the hope of getting anyone to file a complaint against the nude coffee-maker. In short, his arrest got both official pre-approval and a vigorous post-defense. If convicted, the fellow faces up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine.

You hear this over and over again; the police brutalization of innocent people is both sanctioned and defended by the higher-ups. Consider another instance: the fellow who was innocently walking home from a pizza parlor in Pittsburgh during the G-20 Summit and protests in that city only to encounter about 15 policemen who forced him to his knees to facilitate a "trophy photo" reminiscent of those snapped of enemy prisoners during a war. The most interesting aspect of that story? Police supervisors were among the photo-op hungry thugs.

Today my eyes were caught by the headline "Arlington Catholic football player charged"; the story that followed...A criminal charge has been filed against an Arlington Catholic football player who allegedly head-butted an opposing player whose helmet had been knocked off in a football game last month....Daniel Curtin, who could not play football for 10 days after the incident because of concussion concerns, suffered two lacerations and an “apple-sized’’ lump on his forehead, his mother said. LaShoto, who was an honors student and captain of the team, was suspended for two games by Arlington Catholic, said his lawyer, Ronald Martignetti of Winchester. Martignetti said the suspension, which was formulated in conjunction with both Arlington Catholic and Abington High School officials, was adequate. "We see this as an unfortunate incident,’’ Martignetti said, and the filing of charges as “a misuse of the criminal process.’’

Yes, you agree (as prudent readers are wont to do) this destroys civil liberties, but what does this have to do with the economy...?

The juggernaut of criminalization has a profound impact not only on the individuals involved but also upon society as a whole.

The impact on the individuals involved is more obvious and, so, can be stated briefly. The accused must spend money on fines, attorney fees, bail, etc. -- money that is diverted from productive uses like education or investment. If convicted, most will lose jobs, their place at college and, those who fall behind in bills, may lose their homes and be forced into bankruptcy. They could also forfeit the most productive years of life. They could be legally barred from certain professions, from 'privileges' like acquiring a Passport and from receiving some government benefits. On a less official basis, finding a good job or renting in a desirable area could be a problem; employers and landlords reject people due to bad credit scores these days; a felony conviction will be huge black mark.

Criminalization is creating a large segment within society that consists of second-class citizens in terms of both civil liberties and economic prospects. Every non-violent individual who is rendered "a criminal" is someone who no longer functions productively in society. What percentage of people can be legally stripped of upward mobility without making society stumble? I don't know but we may be currently testing the limit.

The economic impact on society is immense in other ways as well. The taxpayer -- that is, you -- pays the staggering cost of arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning "criminals" for acts such as making coffee in the nude. (Indeed, the high prison population in California is one of the reasons for that state's bankruptcy.) As a taxpayer, you also pay to settle the lawsuits that occur more frequently in response to abuses of process. Meanwhile, when police and the courts focus on non-violent people, you are less safe from those who assault, steal, rape or murder.

Law enforcement is one of the few areas of employment growth these days but, remember, it is tax-paid employment that adds to the drain of money from productive, private hands into yet another bureaucratic purse. Government cannot create money or wealth; government only redistributes it. Every non-violent person who is arrested represents money taken from your family and your future; it goes instead to the families and futures of government employees. Understandably, this reduces your incentive to create wealth because more and more of it is stolen to feed fat bureaucrats and those who damage your life, your liberty...like police officers.

I do not see the criminalization juggernaut stopping any time soon. There are glimmers of progress, like the de facto legalization of medical marijuana, but I think they are aberrations; the general trend remains solidly toward the manufacture of felons as fast as they can be cranked out. Politicians cannot be elected on a platform of "let's get softer on crime!" Huge and rich industries (including the police, courts, the probation system, prison guards, lawyers...to name a few) depend on continuing and expanding the criminalization process. That process has been institutionalized, which means it is very difficult to confront successfully. Moreover, too many people seem to want a police state. The government has done a wonderful job of scaring the hell out of the public and everyone wants to be safe. As long as it is not their door that is being broken down, a large percentage of people applauds and defends the police's brutality and totalitarianism

So...along with a soaring rate of homelessness, the criminalization of everyday life is one of the trends that must be reversed if society is to economically recover.

Original report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts on Wicked Thoughts Archive

  ¶ 4:06 PM 0 comments links to this post

 

Parents of two murdered French students begin claim for negligence against bungling British police and justice system

The parents of two French students murdered by an offender under probation supervision began a claim yesterday for “substantial damages” against the police and Ministry of Justice. The families are seeking compensation over systematic failures and negligence in the justice system that contributed to the deaths of their sons, Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez.

The men were tied up in their flat in New Cross, southeast London, tortured and stabbed 244 times in what prosecutors said was an “orgy of blood-letting”. Their bodies were found after an explosion sparked by the murderers set fire to the premises.

Dano Sonnex, 23, from Peckham, southeast London, and Nigel Farmer, 34, of no fixed address, were jailed for life earlier this year for the murders. At the time of the killings in June 2008, Sonnex was under the supervision of the Probation Service after being released from serving an eight-year jail term for violence and robbery. It emerged later that a series of blunders by police, the courts, and prison and probation services meant that Sonnex was free when he should have been recalled to jail.

Anna Mazzola, solicitor for Guy Bonomo, Laurent’s father, and Françoise Villemont, mother of Gabriel Ferez, said: “This was an absolutely horrific case and Gabriel and Laurent’s family are living with the reality of it every day. “The really awful thing for them is that the crimes could and should have been prevented. They could have been stopped if the probation service had recognised Sonnex as a serious risk earlier on. They could have been stopped if the recall process had been carried out properly.”

Ms Mazzola, of Hickman and Rose, added: “Our clients do not accept that this was just a matter of their sons being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They believe that the repeated failings of the British criminal justice system led to Gabriel and Laurent being subjected to an appalling ordeal. “They do not believe that they have been given the answers that they need. They are therefore seeking accountability from the justice system as well as compensation in respect of the enormous damage they have suffered and the torment which Gabriel and Laurent suffered in the hours before their deaths.”

In their claim against the Metropolitan Police and the Ministry of Justice, which oversees probation services, the parents accuse them of negligence and breaching human rights law. They claim that the Probation Service was negligent in wrongly assessing Sonnex as presenting a medium risk of harming the public and in its failure to produce a plan to manage his potential risk. The families also claim that the Metropolitan Police were negligent in failing to respond quickly to a request that Sonnex should be recalled to prison.

In their claim the families also say that the police and Ministry of Justice breached human rights laws intended to protect individuals from a risk to life.

After Sonnex and Farmer were convicted of the murders, Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, apologised to the families for the blunders that left Sonnex on the streets when he should have been in custody for breaking the terms of his release from an earlier jail sentence. David Scott, the chief probation officer in London, resigned his post in February over the failings and expressed his “utter regret”.

Original report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts on Wicked Thoughts Archive

  ¶ 2:32 PM 0 comments links to this post

 

SCOTUS: Can prosecutors be sued for framing defendants?

Two African-American men wrongly imprisoned for 25 years filed a lawsuit against prosecutors for fabricating evidence against them. The Supreme Court hears the case Wednesday

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to consider an unusual question: Do Americans who have been framed by unscrupulous prosecutors for crimes they did not commit have a right to sue the prosecutors when the fraud is finally exposed?

According to the Obama administration, the answer is no. Solicitor General Elena Kagan argues in a friend of the court brief that local, state, and federal prosecutors must enjoy absolute immunity from citizen lawsuits – even when they sent innocent men to prison for life by fabricating incriminating evidence and hiding exculpatory evidence.

Those are the allegations in a case from Iowa set for oral argument on Wednesday morning. According to legal briefs filed in the case, prosecutors in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, solicited false testimony implicating two innocent African-American teens in the murder of a recently retired police officer in 1977. At trial, the false testimony led to their convictions. They were sent to prison for life.

When the false testimony and other exculpatory evidence was discovered, the two innocent men, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington, were released after 25 years in prison. They filed a lawsuit against the prosecutors. The question before the high court is whether the prosecutors can be held accountable in a civil trial or instead are entitled to absolute immunity from such lawsuits.

"If the allegations here are true, [the Iowa officials] engaged in prosecutorial misconduct of an execrable sort, involving a complete breach of the public trust," Solicitor General Kagan writes in her brief to the court. "But absolute immunity reflects a policy judgment that such conduct is properly addressed not through civil liability, but through a host of other deterrents and punishments."

Absolute vs. qualified immunity

Lawyers for Mr. McGhee and Mr. Harrington argue in their briefs that police officers who fabricate evidence do not enjoy such absolute protection from a civil lawsuit. They say prosecutors who actively participate in the pre-trial investigation of a case must be held to the same standard as police officers, detectives, and agents, who can be sued if they violate clearly-established constitutional rights. "When law enforcement officers fabricate evidence with an intent to use it to deprive innocent citizens of their liberty, they violate the Constitution," writes Paul Clement, a former US Solicitor General who is arguing the case for McGhee and Harrington.

"The framing of innocent African-American citizens for a crime they did not commit, lies at the core of what Congress sought to prevent in the Civil Rights statutes," Mr. Clement says in his brief.

Lawyers for the two prosecutors counter that there is no constitutional right "not to be framed."

The critical question is whether the trial is fair, they say. The constitutional infraction occurs not when the false statements are first obtained, but when they are introduced at trial. Since prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from lawsuits related to the actions they take at trial, any false testimony cannot form the basis of a lawsuit against a prosecutor, they say.

Attorneys general from 27 states and the District of Columbia filed a friend of the court brief urging the high court to embrace this broader view of absolute prosecutor immunity. However, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Cato Institute, and the American Civil Liberties Union argue for a lower level of immunity that offers prosecutors protection from lawsuits except when they have violated a clearly-established constitutional right.

Confidence in justice system

New Jersey-based group Black Cops Against Police Brutality also filed a friend of the court brief in the case. "This case is not just about drawing a good lawyerly line between precedents," writes Chicago lawyer Mark Herrmann in a brief for the group. "The facts are that Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee are black and once were young, and that [the murder victim] was white and had been a police captain. Together, these facts made it easy for [the prosecutors] and their accomplices to frame Harrington and McGhee for murder."

Mr. Herrmann writes: "We can imagine few rulings of this Court that would send a more negative message about American criminal justice than to permit white prosecutors to frame African-American suspects for the murder of a white police officer, admit the outrage, and then walk away with impunity, after their victims have wrongfully suffered twenty-five years in prison."

The case is Pottawattamie County, Iowa, v. McGhee and Harrington.

Original report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts on Wicked Thoughts Archive

  ¶ 8:12 PM 2 comments links to this post