The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2020 AFPWrongful convictions: U.S. police withhold evidence in many cases, study shows
By ROBERTO SCHMIDT WASHINGTON©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
39 Comments
u_s__reamer
I worked in Malcolm X's "alma mater" and met a fair number of wrongfully imprisoned inmates of color. No surprise to read about the rampant corruption in America's two tier system of "justice". Slavery, Reconstruction, Jim Crow and today, mass incarceration. All you have to do is join the dots. That's why BLM.
garth
America, beacon of justice and democracy for the world. Yeah, sure!!!
rainyday
In fairness to the police, the article clearly indicates that this is mostly the result of prosecutorial, rather than police, misconduct.
Black Sabbath
In fairness to the police and prosecutors, since half of the cops and prosecutors are liars and scum, that mean the other half are not.
But of this I am certain: the situation can only improve when the good cops stop protecting the crap cops. And DA's stop protecting crap prosecutors.
bass4funk
Excellent point.
Madverts
Agreed Rainy.
Prosecutors are generally all serpents. Anything for a "win" justice be damned.
bass4funk
Oh, Not just the prosecutors, you also have a lot of slimy personal lawyers that will do anything and everything by any means to get their client off and that happens too much and too often.
Paul14
In the U.K all evidence has to be disclosed to the defense team. Is it not the same in the U.S.A? There should be harsh penalties for non disclosure, that would stop bent police and prosecutors as they faced jail time themselves.
albaleo
I think the laws are similar in both countries. But there are various reports in the UK too of evidence being withheld.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5572445/Police-trained-hide-evidence-dont-want-defence-see.html
(Daily Mail link, but it refers to an article from The Times. Unfortunately, The Times' page is not free to view.)
rainyday
The same rule exists in the US.
Interestingly it does not in Japan. Prosecutors here only have to disclose evidence that they intend to use at trial. Since they obviously have no use for exculpatory evidence at trial, they sometimes don't disclose it to the defence. The defence can file a motion with the judge demanding that the prosecution turn over the evidence, but they have to actually be aware of the fact that it exists to do so. A lot of Japan's wrongful convictions that get overturned usually involve exculpatory evidence that the prosecution didn't turn over.
bass4funk
U-huh...please say that to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
Unless it’s Tara Reid
Alexandre T. Ishii
Great Trump of America First is working well even in this Covid-19 cases 1rst ranking, incredible! People revolting of hate, discrimination, bullying, harassment and he is still there, great. (?)
bob
JT- you sure know how to get the clicks.
Lets post a single study without any counter arguments that buries something like this way down in the story
We get it. You think the United States is the Third Reich. But this is really grabbing at straws
Good god, I can't wait until November 4th when these stories suddenly disappear..
englisc aspyrgend
Perhaps all of those involved in hiding evidence where the conviction is overturned should serve the same amount of time as the innocent party. That should incentivise honesty.
Why does it not surprise me that there is a different setup in Japan. A trial should be upon all the evidence not just what looks good for a conviction.
rainyday
What exactly is the counter argument that you'd like to see? Wrongful convictions are good? The innocent should be behind bars? What?
And what is the significance of that line being "buried" in the article?
bass4funk
No, never.
All I am saying is that both sites whether you are a defense attorney or you are a prosecutor both of them are lawyers and such, you do have some shady characters and unethical ones representing either the client or the state.
>
bass4funk
Yes, As he should and duly noted, but even though they were constitutionally provided, that doesn’t mean that the person they are representing is ethical and the same goes for the prosecutors, both sides have the ability to say no to represent a client.
bass4funk
It does it mean the people that they’re representing our ethical nor does it mean these lawyers are ethical. They do have the right to turn down a case.
bass4funk
well, you just make my point for me. But when it comes to ethics, neither side as the upper hand.
Blacklabel
and Donald Trump is personally responsible for every single one of these.
And Joe Biden is responsible for none of these, as during his 8 years as VP, this never happened.
rainyday
You could really go on all day with this "who is unethical" debate but its kind of pointless. You have an adversarial system of justice in which both the prosecutors and defence are duty bound to do what it takes to prove their case, bound only by the ethical guidelines that the Bar Association imposes on lawyers and the rules of criminal procedure. So "ethics" in this context means "following the rules", which isn't the same as "doing what most people would consider morally correct". Prosecutors aggressively go after defendants, some of whom are actually innocent, while defence attorneys rigorously defend their clients, many of whom really do belong in prison.
If you have a problem with the ethics of that, its more a problem with the system itself than any individual operating in it.
Blacklabel
they wont disappear, Will be a couple hours of shock that Trump won again and then the media will start running impeachment stories again. Just like in 2016, the first impeachment story was like 21 hours after he was elected.
To be followed by Antifa/BLM riots, then more riots after the police are found innocent about George Floyd, followed by more riots when the police are found innocent about Jacob Blake. then some riots.
bass4funk
I understand all that, but it has nothing to do with ethics and it has nothing to do with defense lawyers or prosecutors and some of them having ethical issues that goes for both sides
bass4funk
I agree.
Bob Fosse
Said absolutely NOBODY except you.
Bob Fosse
Stop stirring the pot
Bob Fosse
It’s pitiful
ohara
@PSmith: Nobody is forcing you to use JT.
PSmith, Its not just JT - and hes not saying it is.
Blacklabel
oh ok, so this is just an issue still looking for an owner to blame it on. thats rare these days.
Seemed curious to me that a thirty year study that shows policing in a negative light would come out less than 50 days before an election where one candidate is pro-police and the other isnt.
Seeing as Biden wrote the 1994 crime bill, lets say he owns this for now.