|
Devor posted:Cops: We won't take actions that could easily lead to us violating the civil rights of citizens by extra-judicially murdering them Seriously this is the first thing I thought of. Of course this is intended to scare middle class suburbanites into thinking the hordes from "that part of town" are going to start their loitering based crime sprees but everyone else is probably not too sad about it.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Thabo Selfolosha (Hawks player who had his leg broken by police before playoffs) was just aquitted of all charges. That is gonna be a huge loving lawsuit. Dude essentially refused a dismissal to have his day in court, I don't think he cares about costs, just getting poo poo right. Edit: 45 minute deliberation. Jesus. For those that don't know, that is enough time for the jurors to leave the court, sit down, use the bathroom, make sure they have the needed papers, elect a foreman, and then say "guys, anyone think he's actually guilty? Nope, well we have verdict", sign the paper and go back into court. That poo poo had to have no merit. nm fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
nm posted:Thabo Selfolosha (Hawks player who had his leg broken by police before playoffs) was just aquitted of all charges. Another lingering issue here, and harkening back to some of the thread's earlier public defender chat, is that Thabo probably had a very capable legal team. I wonder how many resisting charges around the country would fall flat annually if this were the case for every defendant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:Another lingering issue here, and harkening back to some of the thread's earlier public defender chat, is that Thabo probably had a very capable legal team. I wonder how many resisting charges around the country would fall flat annually if this were the case for every defendant. All of them where the only crime is resisting arrest when there is no reason for said arrest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
What would happen if "resisting arrest" charges were automatically dropped if they were the only charges brought against a person? What consequences would there be to police-public interactions and to the legal system?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:What would happen if "resisting arrest" charges were automatically dropped if they were the only charges brought against a person? What consequences would there be to police-public interactions and to the legal system? We say "resisting arrest" as a shorthand, but it is really "resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer." It is an example of a law that makes sense, run amok. There are virtually identical statutes for firefighters and paramedics that don't get abuse. For example, if I stand in front of a police car responding to an emergecy and refuse to move even when asked and ordered to, there should be some power to do something about it. That is what these statutes are designed to defend. Regarding his legal defense, I suspect if he'd had the fairly notable public defenders in NYC, he'd have a pretty solid defense. Would he be able to bail out? Probably not. Further he had the advantage of a clean record and being high profile enough to get good witnesses. One of the star witnesses was a homeless guy who came forward, would he have come forward for some guy whose story didn't hit the NYT? He also got coaches and fellow basketball stars to teastify to his character. Poor people don't get that He also had a clean record, the ability to actually attend trial (working people can't take weeks off for thier miadeamnor trial). If he'd been in some backwater with a contract PD, he'd have been hosed, though those places often have juries who don't love black people. But in NYC, his legal counsel likely would have been fairly decent, however the person who qualifies for the PD wouldn't have his advantages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:What would happen if "resisting arrest" charges were automatically dropped if they were the only charges brought against a person? What consequences would there be to police-public interactions and to the legal system? They would lie about another charge or be tempted to plant evidence even more than now? They will find a reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
nm posted:Thabo Selfolosha (Hawks player who had his leg broken by police before playoffs) was just aquitted of all charges. I know that this is a totally different area and all so it's not a one to one but to me I think this is important. There was a lot of talk about how the prosecutors in many cases of police brutality simply can't waste their time with charging the cops since they are of course going to lose based on whatever. However from the jury deliberation alone (ignore that it's another ridiculous case where the injured person is arrested after being attacked) it's clear that bringing this guy to court with such a weak case was no problem at all. It just feels like another excuse to remove personal accountability from the people in charge so they can throw up their hands and say that's just the way it is instead of owning what they do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Radish posted:I know that this is a totally different area and all so it's not a one to one but to me I think this is important. There was a lot of talk about how the prosecutors in many cases of police brutality simply can't waste their time with charging the cops since they are of course going to lose based on whatever. However from the jury deliberation alone (ignore that it's another ridiculous case where the injured person is arrested after being attacked) it's clear that bringing this guy to court with such a weak case was no problem at all. It just feels like another excuse to remove personal accountability from the people in charge so they can throw up their hands and say that's just the way it is instead of owning what they do. Also, some DAs, particularly the baby DAs who prosecute misdemeanors, still believe that cops never lie and whatever they said must have happened and further think the jury thinks the same way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:Another lingering issue here, and harkening back to some of the thread's earlier public defender chat, is that Thabo probably had a very capable legal team. I wonder how many resisting charges around the country would fall flat annually if this were the case for every defendant. cops would just find another charge to pin on you. there are plenty of vague charges in a cop's toolbox if they want to arrest you for whatever reason
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Some cases from Texas to add to the pile - these are older cases that were just recently settled: http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/dallas-county/2015/10/09/dallas-police-altercation-lawsuit-excessive-force/73690602/ quote:DALLAS — It's dash cam video that Dallas police commanders never wanted the public to see. http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/09/city-and-mentally-ill-man-shot-by-dallas-officer-in-2013-agree-on-settlement.html/ quote:Update: City will pay $1.6 million to settle lawsuit by mentally ill man shot by cop (video of the incident can be viewed at this link: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/attorney-sues-officers-city-after-october-police-shooting-captured-on-video.html/) http://wtop.com/sports/2015/09/settlement-signed-in-texas-police-shooting-civil-rights-suit/ quote:HOUSTON (AP) — The family of a former major league baseball player whose son mistakenly was shot by a police sergeant outside their Houston-area home has settled a civil rights lawsuit against the city of Bellaire and the officer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
nm posted:Well pursuing a resisting case makes cops happy because in some states a resisting conviction can make the cops immune from civil suit for excessive force. I brought this up earlier but it got buried in either cigarette or schizophrenic murder shouting matches but would a potential solution to this be actually charging at least making part of a cops record (reprimands or whatver) of things like falsifying evidence, lying on reports, etc? I know the political will to have it happen doesn't exist but the constant stream of stories over the last year or two might actually change that. I know you can't bring up unrelated crimes in court, but you can bring up relevant ones, right? Like if someone's busted for possession they can bring up previous drug related convictions (can they mention charges?). Maybe if a cop with 11 charges and 4 'convictions' or reprimands or whatever showing a pattern of lying may help with a jury just believing what the cop says because he's a cop. Edit: I keep forgetting to ask this: does jury nullification actually exist? I've heard both that it's actually 'in the books' or it exists in that a juror is under no legal obligation to render a guilty verdict even if he believes the facts are true. That the entire purpose of a jury and why deliberations are secret and are under no obligation to reveal how they decided that it's a protection built into the system against unjust laws. A juror may believe a person did commit the crime but either disagrees with the law or the punishment for breaking it so can still say not guilty. I know that judges do their best to try and make them think they have to say guilty if they think the charges are true but the whole reason it's secret is they can come back with any verdict they want and do not have to say much less explain why they reached that verdict. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qUT2uPVlvg
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 00:31
|
|
Toasticle posted:Edit: I keep forgetting to ask this: does jury nullification actually exist? I've heard both that it's actually 'in the books' or it exists in that a juror is under no legal obligation to render a guilty verdict even if he believes the facts are true. That the entire purpose of a jury and why deliberations are secret and are under no obligation to reveal how they decided that it's a protection built into the system against unjust laws. A juror may believe a person did commit the crime but either disagrees with the law or the punishment for breaking it so can still say not guilty. I know that judges do their best to try and make them think they have to say guilty if they think the charges are true but the whole reason it's secret is they can come back with any verdict they want and do not have to say much less explain why they reached that verdict. It "extists", inasmuchas people do it sometimes. It's effectively a way of breaking the legal system, so perspectives tend to be skewed based on the outcome(like, say, a marijuana conviction, or a lynching). Historically, judges have supported or attacked the practice, both within the US and from outside. It's certainly not the historical basis of juries, though- and there are a variety of contemporary systemic procedures intended to discourage or stop the practice, such as JNOV or motions to set aside judgement, such as habeases. The general practice in the US legal system is that juries are meant to decide issues of fact, not issues of law (such as whether or not a law is just). There's an ideological divide on the subject of whether or not it's an acceptable practice; some people really want it to be permissible, particularly when they favor a particular outcome. People arguing for jury nullification generally do so because they have a specific law in mind, and are willing to create a structural hole in the normal civic procedures of legislation to get rid of it. In those terms, it's a bit like threatening to defund the government. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I know you can't bring up unrelated crimes in court, but you can bring up relevant ones, right? Like if someone's busted for possession they can bring up previous drug related convictions (can they mention charges?). Maybe if a cop with 11 charges and 4 'convictions' or reprimands or whatever showing a pattern of lying may help with a jury just believing what the cop says because he's a cop. IANAL, but you can't bring up charges; charges that don't result in a conviction can't officially be held against you (unless you're applying to certain sensitive positions.) On the other hand, if a cop has a perjury conviction, the prosecutor has to disclose that to the defense under Brady v. Maryland, which the defense can introduce to impeach the officer's credibility as a witness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The general practice in the US legal system is that juries are meant to decide issues of fact, not issues of law (such as whether or not a law is just). In some states juries are the finders of both fact and law, and in those cases the argument for nullification as being a legitimate act for the jury is a lot stronger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I know you can't bring up unrelated crimes in court, but you can bring up relevant ones, right? Generally speaking, no. (Like everything else it depends on exact facts and jurisdiction but the general rule is no evidence of prior bad acts may be introduced by the prosecution absent the defense opening the door.) It can be introduced for limited purposes (showing a motive for a crime being the big one), and there's a secondary exception which relates to prior bad acts that tend to show dishonesty by a witness, even if unrelated to the case at hand (eg, if they have a history of lying under oath, or a history of crimes of fraud, that can typically be admitted to attack the credibility of their testimony.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:In some states juries are the finders of both fact and law, and in those cases the argument for nullification as being a legitimate act for the jury is a lot stronger. Name a single state in which juries are the finders of law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Name a single state in which juries are the finders of law. Seriously, I must have missed this one in school...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Tamir Rice shooting was tragic but reasonable: prosecution expertsquote:CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office released reports Saturday from two experts in use of force by police who concluded that the fatal shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice by a Cleveland officer was "tragic" and "heartbreaking," but reasonable given that the officer believed the boy to be armed. Tamir Rice was the 12-year-old who got killed in about a second by some loving psycopath. Just a little preview of how the prosecutor's planning to tank the grand jury.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:In some states juries are the finders of both fact and law, and in those cases the argument for nullification as being a legitimate act for the jury is a lot stronger. ahhh no
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I know you can't bring up unrelated crimes in court, but you can bring up relevant ones, right? Like if someone's busted for possession they can bring up previous drug related convictions (can they mention charges?). Maybe if a cop with 11 charges and 4 'convictions' or reprimands or whatever showing a pattern of lying may help with a jury just believing what the cop says because he's a cop. As a general rule, stuff brought in to show "this person is "bad" is not admissible by either side. However, felony CONVICTIONS within a specified time period are relevant under the logic they go to credibility (this also helps the defense because, at least in my line of work, a lot of my witnesses also have felony records). And it goes to the witness's credibility, so if the defendant doesn't take the stand, his record doesn't come in. But generally you can't get into the specifics of the crime. Also, anything that goes to a witness's truthfulness (e.g. a perjury conviction) is admissible, and evidence that goes to motive, pattern or intent, even where defendant does not take the stand, is admissible. But all of this is usually hashed out in front of the judge outside the presence of the jury and clear lines are set as to what does and does not come in. LeJackal posted:In some states juries are the finders of both fact and law, and in those cases the argument for nullification as being a legitimate act for the jury is a lot stronger. you are so full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Tamir Rice shooting was tragic but reasonable: prosecution experts Came here to post this and say gently caress this prosecutor so hard. He released these reports at 8:00 p.m. last night and didn't even provide the family with a copy. The loving prosecutor went out and found two experts to justify this murder; that's not the prosecutors job. You can find an expert to say anything that you want them to say for the right price. So now we know why it took the prosecutor 11 months to present this to the grand jury; he was creating evidence to get the decision he wanted. That's just loving evil. God drat I hope this poor family adds the prosecutor to any lawsuit they file.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Came here to post this and say gently caress this prosecutor so hard. He released these reports at 8:00 p.m. last night and didn't even provide the family with a copy. The loving prosecutor went out and found two experts to justify this murder; that's not the prosecutors job. You can find an expert to say anything that you want them to say for the right price. So now we know why it took the prosecutor 11 months to present this to the grand jury; he was creating evidence to get the decision he wanted. That's just loving evil. God drat I hope this poor family adds the prosecutor to any lawsuit they file. Because they rushed Rice so fast, they had no option but to kill him: quote:The report prepared by retired FBI agent Kimberly A. Crawford concluded that Loehmann's use of force did not violate Tamir's constitutional rights, saying the only facts relevant to such a determination are those the patrolman had at the time he fired his weapon. The officer rushed into the situation so fast, they didn't even have time to think. But a good shoot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
But they didn't look at any of the circumstances leading up to the shooting, only the 2 second encounter. Because that's totally reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Reminds me of the prosecutor in my home town that decided since the off duty cop created a dangerous situation by jumping in front of a moving van, that he was within his rights to shoot wildly into the van killing a passenger in the back seat. What a farce.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because they rushed Rice so fast, they had no option but to kill him: The rear end in a top hat prosecutor created evidence. How does this not qualify as witness tampering by the drat prosecutor?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
radical meme posted:The rear end in a top hat prosecutor created evidence. How does this not qualify as witness tampering by the drat prosecutor? Nah, see these were investigations into if there was a constitutional violation, they don't address if a law was broken. If the prosecutor forgets to mention that distinction to the grand jury...well mistakes get made all the time!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
radical meme posted:The rear end in a top hat prosecutor created evidence. How does this not qualify as witness tampering by the drat prosecutor? Hiring expert witnesses is not "creating evidence."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
nm posted:Hiring expert witnesses is not "creating evidence." Nor is it witness tampering, for that matter, to look for experts who will toe the line you want them to (even assuming that's what happened here which is not guaranteed.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
I wonder if he'll mention all that evidence of the mental instability of Loehmann from his fellow officers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
nm posted:Hiring expert witnesses is not "creating evidence." It didn't exist the day of the murder, it didn't exist before yesterday and it came into being as a result of the actions of the prosecutor so I think it was pretty much created. Kalman posted:Nor is it witness tampering, for that matter, to look for experts who will toe the line you want them to (even assuming that's what happened here which is not guaranteed.) This part of 18 U.S. Code § 1512 seems pretty drat applicable to me: quote:(c) Whoever corruptly—
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
radical meme posted:It didn't exist the day of the murder, it didn't exist before yesterday and it came into being as a result of the actions of the prosecutor so I think it was pretty much created. Yeah I'm fairly sure that doesn't apply to, I don't know....a DA loving hiring a expert witness.... Like would your same logic apply to a DA asking a Lab Tech to run some DNA that proves someone's innocence? Like, sure I too think the DA is probably trying to get the result they want. But the problem isn't that they got some expert witnesses to write a report.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah I'm fairly sure that doesn't apply to, I don't know....a DA loving hiring a expert witness.... No, because that's standard procedure and an analysis of physical evidence. This was way outside standard procedure. This prosecutor went looking for an opinion to justify a finding by the grand jury. That's not his job. His job is to present the evidence to the grand jury and let them decide. Instead, he is going to present two opinions to the grand jury that say, "nothing wrong happened here". That's wrong. He is attempting to influence the grand jury decision and he is not supposed to do that. There is a difference between offering a scientific analysis of the evidence for a grand jury's consideration and offering opinion testimony as proof of "no wrong doing". The problem is exactly that the prosecutor had created two opinion reports deliberately intended to unduly influence the grand jury.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
radical meme posted:No, because that's standard procedure and an analysis of physical evidence. This was way outside standard procedure. This prosecutor went looking for an opinion to justify a finding by the grand jury. That's not his job. His job is to present the evidence to the grand jury and let them decide. Instead, he is going to present two opinions to the grand jury that say, "nothing wrong happened here". That's wrong. He is attempting to influence the grand jury decision and he is not supposed to do that. Well, there's your problem. The DA didn't go "looking for an opinion to justify a finding by the grand jury" he got expert testimony about if a constitutional violation occurred. Getting expert testimony is fairly common. Just because the jury won't get this nuance, doesn't mean the law doesn't. You're really sounding kinda crazy when you say things like "[The DA] is attempting to influence the grand jury decision and he is not supposed to do that" because that's like, their entire job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, there's your problem. The DA didn't go "looking for an opinion to justify a finding by the grand jury" he got expert testimony about if a constitutional violation occurred. Getting expert testimony is fairly common. Just because the jury won't get this nuance, doesn't mean the law doesn't. Your wrong in my opinion. You totally misunderstand the purpose of a grand jury and the prosecutor's role. The prosecutor's job is to collect the existing evidence and present it to the grand jury for a decision as to whether there is enough evidence to justify an indictment for the crime; it's not a question of guilt or innocence, just a question of whether or not there is sufficient evidence to indict. Often, a prosecutor will go that extra mile to get an indictment but it is not his job to go out of his way to create evidence, and especially lovely opinion testimony, to justify "not indicting". Your understanding of the prosecutor's job is just wrong. Also, getting expert opinion testimony on the ultimate issue to be found by the grand jury is not common at all. radical meme fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Your wrong in my opinion. You totally misunderstand the purpose of a grand jury and the prosecutor's role. The prosecutor's job is to collect the existing evidence and present it to the grand jury for a decision as to whether there is enough evidence to justify an indictment for the crime; it's not a question of guilt or innocence, just a question of whether or not there is sufficient evidence to indict. I don't think you're accurately describing the role of a DA in a grand jury, it isn't just to mindlessly present evidence. Expert testimony/reports are fairly common in grand juries from what I understand. Do you have evidence otherwise? quote:Often, a prosecutor will go that extra mile to get an indictment but it is not his job to go out of his way to create evidence, and especially lovely opinion testimony, to justify "not indicting". Your understanding of the prosecutor's job is just wrong. You've still got this idea that asking for an expert report is "creating evidence" which is just wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
radical meme posted:No, because that's standard procedure and an analysis of physical evidence. This was way outside standard procedure. This prosecutor went looking for an opinion to justify a finding by the grand jury. That's not his job. His job is to present the evidence to the grand jury and let them decide. Instead, he is going to present two opinions to the grand jury that say, "nothing wrong happened here". That's wrong. He is attempting to influence the grand jury decision and he is not supposed to do that. Literally everything you said here after the first sentence is wrong. Claiming expert witness testimony as undue influence is pretty special though, influencing the jury is the entire point of Also the cops being reckless with their approach doesn't really have any bearing on whether he had a reasonable fear, so it is irrelevant in this context. Where it is relevant is the massive wrongful death suit that is the appropriate remedy to this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Your wrong in my opinion. You totally misunderstand the purpose of a grand jury and the prosecutor's role. The prosecutor's job is to collect the existing evidence and present it to the grand jury for a decision as to whether there is enough evidence to justify an indictment for the crime; it's not a question of guilt or innocence, just a question of whether or not there is sufficient evidence to indict. Often, a prosecutor will go that extra mile to get an indictment but it is not his job to go out of his way to create evidence, and especially lovely opinion testimony, to justify "not indicting". Your understanding of the prosecutor's job is just wrong. Yes, they never have a coroner testify as to the cause of death being poisoning v. a heart attack or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Expert testimony is common in any court proceeding. But there is a difference between court proceedings and grand juries. Expert testimony analyzing physical evidence is common in grand juries. Expert opinion testimony on the ultimate issue to be decided by the grand jury is not common at all. And having the prosecutor go out of his way to request, pay for and present opinion testimony that exonerates the murderer is an incredible abuse of the grand jury system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:54
|
|