[Politics] Calls Have Been Made To Reopen Cases By "Central Park 5" Prosecutor

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

In the wake of the Netflix miniseries, "When They See Us" by Ava DuVernay about the Central Park 5, there have been growing calls made to reopen the cases of the CP5 case's original prosecutor, Linda Fairstein. There have also been calls to boycott her books.

https://www.thefader.com/2019/06/03/netflix-when-they-see-us-linda-fairstein-cases-book-boycott

The power of fiction at times. Will see how this goes.

With this and the Rkelly thing, it's a little weird to see Netflix documentaries as a potentially more effect method of appeal for people on the receiving end or 'blind spot' of a flawed justice system. Not sure how to feel about that. Suppose the exposure in of itself is the driving force, which also brings mixed feelings. I don't got Netflix, so can't watch them legally, but reading has sufficed. Oh, oops, that isn't a documentary, but dramatisation, I did assume otherwise. Well, it's almost one.

Amazing how this fraud was allowed to build http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-06-12.html

Dunno how we hold the fraudsters to account.

Gorfias:
Amazing how this fraud was allowed to build http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-06-12.html

Dunno how we hold the fraudsters to account.

I hope by fraudsters you're talking about people like Fairstein, the involved police officers, and fear/outrage-peddling talking heads (eg: Coulter, Trump, etc)

Avnger:

Gorfias:
Amazing how this fraud was allowed to build http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-06-12.html

Dunno how we hold the fraudsters to account.

I hope by fraudsters you're talking about people like Fairstein, the involved police officers, and talking heads (eg: Coulter, Trump, etc)

Do you think anything Coulter has written is incorrect? That the only "new" evidence in the case is the untrustworthy testimony of a rapist? The rest of the evidence, like the confessions of the "5" still fits?

Gorfias:

Do you think anything Coulter has written is incorrect? That the only "new" evidence in the case is the untrustworthy testimony of a rapist? The rest of the evidence, like the confessions of the "5" still fits?

You know the Guildford Four (in their twenties, not children) confessed, right? I think we know what happened later.

And seriously, stop reading that Coulter shit. She's one step away from running around in a white sheet with a burning torch.

Gorfias:

Do you think anything Coulter has written is incorrect? That the only "new" evidence in the case is the untrustworthy testimony of a rapist? The rest of the evidence, like the confessions of the "5" still fits?

This is ludicrous. Reyes not only confessed, but provided an account matching other evidence. He was a DNA match for the only semen found. And he was demonstrably in the same area of the same park shortly before.

Yes, what Coulter wrote is incorrect. She is a detestable liar.

Gorfias:

Avnger:

Gorfias:
Amazing how this fraud was allowed to build http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-06-12.html

Dunno how we hold the fraudsters to account.

I hope by fraudsters you're talking about people like Fairstein, the involved police officers, and talking heads (eg: Coulter, Trump, etc)

Do you think anything Coulter has written is incorrect? That the only "new" evidence in the case is the untrustworthy testimony of a rapist? The rest of the evidence, like the confessions of the "5" still fits?

How about nearly everything? Your (and Coulter's) need to blame this on some African-American teenagers despite so clearly being in the wrong is rather telling. I'm not going to bother bringing in sourced facts here because you've shown your disdain for such things by linking and believing Coulter in the first place.

I'm not going to say or imply that the rape conviction was correct or just, but attacking the record of the prosecutor is, so far as I can tell, completely asinine. Like, the prosecutor didn't arrest or investigate anyone, the police do those things, and the prosecutor works with what they are given. I submit the following evidence:

"In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate but equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories. DUN DUN"

This case was overturned nearly 2 decades ago. Nobody questioned the prosecutor's record until now, and they want to now based on a Netflix series that cast her as the villain. And they almost certainly did that because they wanted a consistent villain from start to finish for the sake of compelling storytelling, its more interesting to have one super-racist at the heart of the affair than to have a nebulous system reach injustice. But I don't think that actually happened that way, there's very nearly 0% chance she had anything to say in who got arrested. They are not going to reopen all her cases because of Netflix.

Gorfias:
Amazing how this fraud was allowed to build http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-06-12.html

Dunno how we hold the fraudsters to account.

Directly linking to propaganda sites should be an instant ban, tbh.

Baffle2:

Gorfias:

Do you think anything Coulter has written is incorrect? That the only "new" evidence in the case is the untrustworthy testimony of a rapist? The rest of the evidence, like the confessions of the "5" still fits?

You know the Guildford Four (in their twenties, not children) confessed, right? I think we know what happened later.

And seriously, stop reading that Coulter shit. She's one step away from running around in a white sheet with a burning torch.

I don't know of the Guilford Four... reviewing, thank you for the reference.

PsychedelicDiamond:

Gorfias:
Amazing how this fraud was allowed to build http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-06-12.html

Dunno how we hold the fraudsters to account.

Directly linking to propaganda sites should be an instant ban, tbh.

Edit Easier to ban people than have to explain yourself

Edit: upon further review, not finding anything other than the self serving statement of an unreliable rapist to change why the central park rapists were convicted. Reviewing further.

tstorm823:
I'm not going to say or imply that the rape conviction was correct or just, but attacking the record of the prosecutor is, so far as I can tell, completely asinine. Like, the prosecutor didn't arrest or investigate anyone, the police do those things, and the prosecutor works with what they are given. I submit the following evidence:

"In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate but equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories. DUN DUN"

This case was overturned nearly 2 decades ago. Nobody questioned the prosecutor's record until now, and they want to now based on a Netflix series that cast her as the villain. And they almost certainly did that because they wanted a consistent villain from start to finish for the sake of compelling storytelling, its more interesting to have one super-racist at the heart of the affair than to have a nebulous system reach injustice. But I don't think that actually happened that way, there's very nearly 0% chance she had anything to say in who got arrested. They are not going to reopen all her cases because of Netflix.

Before saying this, you need ask yourself if she ignored Evidence for Confessions that even during the trial, the Five said was coerced by the Police.

The amount of False Confessions that were proven false due to DNA grows every year. If there was DNA evidence and the prosecutor ignored it in favor of the Confessions... which every one of the Five recanted when they went to trial... then some doubt on how the woman proceeded with her case load can be warranted. Her entire case load, I can't say that. But at least, her record must have an asterisk next to her name.

Gorfias:
Do you think anything Coulter has written is incorrect? That the only "new" evidence in the case is the untrustworthy testimony of a rapist? The rest of the evidence, like the confessions of the "5" still fits?

Hey, Gorfias, haven't seen you in a while. I hope you're well.

The Confessions were coerced. If you grow up afraid of the cops your whole life, knowing that you won't get a fair shake, and you have been grilled for hours... the second one of them say "Hey, Raymond. We know you didn't do it. We know this guy is really the person who did it. But here's the thing. The evidence is really somewhat light. We need a witness there who said that Raymond did everything. Don't worry, we'll tell you exactly what to say and go to bat for you when it comes time".

Hey, if you're young and you're in a bad situation that you believe there's no way out of and someone came in, caring and honestly seeming like they know you're innocent? You feel like you hit pay dirt. If this guy actually did it and you would be putting someone away, why wouldn't you "help"? Especially when they 'just found out' it wasn't you, it was this other guy.

And furthermore, why should the confessions matter any more? They have the DNA of the person who actually did it. Reyes. Who they linked to 4 other rapes including the murder of his last victim. Why are we holding so closely to a confession when we have provable evidence and a long list of similar crimes linked to the actual rapist?

ObsidianJones:

Hey, Gorfias, haven't seen you in a while. I hope you're well.

The Confessions were coerced. If you grow up afraid of the cops your whole life, knowing that you won't get a fair shake, and you have been grilled for hours... the second one of them say "Hey, Raymond. We know you didn't do it. We know this guy is really the person who did it. But here's the thing. The evidence is really somewhat light. We need a witness there who said that Raymond did everything. Don't worry, we'll tell you exactly what to say and go to bat for you when it comes time".

Hey, if you're young and you're in a bad situation that you believe there's no way out of and someone came in, caring and honestly seeming like they know you're innocent? You feel like you hit pay dirt. If this guy actually did it and you would be putting someone away, why wouldn't you "help"? Especially when they 'just found out' it wasn't you, it was this other guy.

And furthermore, why should the confessions matter any more? They have the DNA of the person who actually did it. Reyes. Who they linked to 4 other rapes including the murder of his last victim. Why are we holding so closely to a confession when we have provable evidence and a long list of similar crimes linked to the actual rapist?

Nice conversing with you as well.

Thank you for your considered response.

Even from your response, I'm not reading of anything new. Supposedly DNA had nothing to do with the conviction of the Central Park rapists. Even a relative, who thought she was being supportive, said they simply held the woman down. Which is still being part of a rape.

My point is, I'm only reading of a self serving rapist making new statements that do not disprove what initially put these guys away. I honestly think we've been suckered.

Gorfias:

I don't know of the Guilford Four... reviewing, thank you for the reference.

They were wrongly convicted (because they confessed) of a pub bombing and got off scot-free after spending 15 years in jail. The film you're looking for is In the Name of the Father.

Unless there's compelling evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, I don't see any reason to attack the prosecutor.

It is the prosecution's job to build a case. These teenagers had an apparent history of poor behaviour, and there was substantial circumstantial evidence that at minimum they had assaulted the victim, even if not having carried out the actual rape. Why not pursue?

There problem seems to me to be almost entirely about the way the police interrogated them, which seems to have breached proper procedure numerous times. And possibly to extend that, maybe the US legal system more widely that seems to drive people to falsely confess out of fear of greater punishment. You could potentially add problems with prejudice against the accused, by jurors and whipped up by hostile press and publicity. But where is the prosecutor's fault in all that?

Once again I come to the escapist to discover that apparently innocent until proven guilty is a privilege reserved purely for white guys accused of rape or hate crimes.

I should also point out that Fairstein helped Harvey Weinstein when he was accused of groping a model.

https://nypost.com/2017/10/15/linda-fairstein-vouched-for-weinsteins-lawyer-in-model-grope-case-report/

Something was got to give sooner or later.

Agema:

There problem seems to me to be almost entirely about the way the police interrogated them, which seems to have breached proper procedure numerous times. And possibly to extend that, maybe the US legal system more widely that seems to drive people to falsely confess out of fear of greater punishment. You could potentially add problems with prejudice against the accused, by jurors and whipped up by hostile press and publicity. But where is the prosecutor's fault in all that?

The prosecutor's job isn't to put people in prison, it's to put guilty people in prison. To suggest that they wouldn't have been aware of the likelihood of coerced confessions from children seems naive.

I'm not sure who makes the decision to take a case to trial in the States the way the CPS does in the UK, but I thought it was the prosecutor -- if the evidence is lacking but the prosecutor bows to pressure to charge someone then that does call their judgement into question.

Gorfias:
Nice conversing with you as well.

Thank you for your considered response.

Even from your response, I'm not reading of anything new. Supposedly DNA had nothing to do with the conviction of the Central Park rapists. Even a relative, who thought she was being supportive, said they simply held the woman down. Which is still being part of a rape.

My point is, I'm only reading of a self serving rapist making new statements that do not disprove what initially put these guys away. I honestly think we've been suckered.

But that's the issue.

We don't have any word on whether Feinstein received the DNA and ignored it due to either police intervention or her Prosecutorial discretion.

While honest mistakes are sometimes made by prosecutors, prosecutorial misconduct can occur when a prosecutor focuses on a convenient suspect rather than the correct suspect, when a prosecutor suppresses, hides, or even fabricates certain evidence, or when a prosecutor improperly relies on an unreliable witness. All such incidences of prosecutorial misconduct can lead to the overturning of the conviction on appeal.

(Source)

When a conviction is obtained by the presentation of testimony known to the prosecuting authorities to have been perjured, due process is violated. The clause "cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a State has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance . . . is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation."

...In Brady v. Maryland, the Court held "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." In that case, the prosecution had suppressed an extrajudicial confession of defendant?s accomplice that he had actually committed the murder. "The heart of the holding in Brady is the prosecution's suppression of evidence, in the face of a defense production request, where the evidence is favorable to the accused and is material either to guilt or to punishment. Important, then, are (a) suppression by the prosecution after a request by the defense, (b) the evidence?s favorable character for the defense, and (c) the materiality of the evidence."

Source)

Also, Feinstein has been found messing up with the other evidence

Contrary to arguments made by a prosecutor at two trials in 1990, four strands of hair were never "matched" to any of the Harlem teenagers accused of beating and raping a jogger in Central Park, a former police scientist said this week.

The hairs, attributed to the victim and recovered from the clothing of two suspects, were the only pieces of physical evidence offered by prosecutors directly linking any of the teenagers to the crime. The hairs were also cited by the prosecution as a way for the jury to know that the videotaped confessions of the teenagers were reliable.

Nicholas Petraco, a detective who examined the hairs when he worked in the Police Department's criminalistics division and testified at the trials, said the technique for hair examination in 1990 was not powerful enough to tie anyone to the crime with certainty.

"'You can't say 'match,'" Mr. Petraco said. "It's impossible. You could never say it 'matched.' It's ridiculous."

At most, Mr. Petraco said, the hairs could be described as ''consistent with and similar to'' those of the defendants and the victim. The reason he used those words when he testified at the two trials, he said, was to make sure that the jurors and lawyers realized it was entirely possible for the hair to have come from other people.

In fact, earlier this year (2002 at the time of the article), advanced DNA tests not available in 1990 showed precisely that: the hairs did not come from the jogger, and do not link any of the five convicted men to the crime.

While Mr. Petraco avoided making an absolute link between the hairs and any person during his testimony, the lead prosecutor, Elizabeth Lederer, showed no such reticence. In her closing arguments, she used emphatic language to assert that hair found on a defendant, Kevin Richardson, had been "matched" and vouched for the reliability of the vigorously contested confessions.

"Perhaps the most telling of all," Ms. Lederer said, "is the hair that was found on Kevin Richardson's clothes."

She referred the jurors to the testimony of Mr. Petraco, the expert witness called by the prosecution. But in parts of her recitation, his cautious phrasing vanished.

"He found on Kevin Richardson's underpants a hair that matched the head hair of" the victim, Ms. Lederer told the jurors. "And there was a second hair on the T-shirt that matched" the victim's pubic hair. She continued: "There was yet a third hair on his jeans, on his blue jeans, that was consistent with and similar to" hair from the victim's head.

(Source)

So, then we have another quandary here.

We have 1.) The Police and the Prosecution tripped up all over the place, got their wires crossed, and made 'honest mistakes' that made it seem like these Five kids were guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

2.) The Police and the Prosecution did everything by the book. But saw how massively unpopular the verdict was. And at this singular instance, the police realized they needed a publicity win... So they manufactured evidence, released the 5, and pinned it on this rapist they already had. To their own detriment of face and trust.

or 3.) Ready to put this to bed, they found whatever teens they could, used mind games to convince gullible teens to confess to something they didn't do because they thought they could help put the real person away, withheld evidence and presented questionable evidence as fact, even when not substantiated with Police.

We're going down a dangerous path that feelings override actual evidence. Your feelings may be something, but to hold onto it, you have to look at evidence that has been tested by third parties and say it doesn't matter as much as your gut. You have to understand how dangerous that is. We can only be ruled by Law and Provable Fact. Not feelings.

ObsidianJones:

Before saying this, you need ask yourself if she ignored Evidence for Confessions that even during the trial, the Five said was coerced by the Police.

The amount of False Confessions that were proven false due to DNA grows every year. If there was DNA evidence and the prosecutor ignored it in favor of the Confessions... which every one of the Five recanted when they went to trial... then some doubt on how the woman proceeded with her case load can be warranted. Her entire case load, I can't say that. But at least, her record must have an asterisk next to her name.

And if there wasn't DNA evidence against them, then what? They didn't confess to the rape, they confessed to being present at the time of the rape. The DNA evidence never contradicted the confessions. If anything, the DNA results add to the potential credibility of the confessions, because someone else's semen is what you would expect to find when they confess to assaulting her but say someone else did the rape.

I'm not saying there isn't the possibility that those coerced confessions were deliberately constructed that way, perhaps the police knew they had the wrong people so they set them up as accomplices in case hard evidence like DNA could prove they weren't rapists. It could have been that well thought out and malicious. But that would have taken place before a prosecutor got involved, and to my knowledge, I don't think there is any evidence, fabricated or otherwise, that contradicts their confessions, which the prosecutor would have to ignore to more forward with the case.

tstorm823:
And if there wasn't DNA evidence against them, then what? They didn't confess to the rape, they confessed to being present at the time of the rape. The DNA evidence never contradicted the confessions. If anything, the DNA results add to the potential credibility of the confessions, because someone else's semen is what you would expect to find when they confess to assaulting her but say someone else did the rape.

I'm not saying there isn't the possibility that those coerced confessions were deliberately constructed that way, perhaps the police knew they had the wrong people so they set them up as accomplices in case hard evidence like DNA could prove they weren't rapists. It could have been that well thought out and malicious. But that would have taken place before a prosecutor got involved, and to my knowledge, I don't think there is any evidence, fabricated or otherwise, that contradicts their confessions, which the prosecutor would have to ignore to more forward with the case.

Again, a confession they recanted when the alleged promise (That the police said they were just going to use them as witnesses instead of charging them with the crime) by the Police fell through.

As I shown in my last post to Gorfias, Feinstein used 'Hair Matching' to link the Five to the actual beating and rape of Meili. Hair matching that a NYPD Police Detective even said those hairs used didn't definitively match any of the five or the Jogger. And she used it anyway.

And the DNA came out in 2002 to not match anyone related to the case. But it was still used to help convict the Five. In fact, it was used in her closing arguments to help cement their actions against Meili.

Baffle2:

The prosecutor's job isn't to put people in prison, it's to put guilty people in prison. To suggest that they wouldn't have been aware of the likelihood of coerced confessions from children seems naive.

In an idealised world, the function of a prosecutor is to put the guilty in prison.

In the real world, the function of a prosecutor is to see that someone goes to prison, in practice one the evidence can support. At a systemic level, prosecutors need to meet a public desire to see that crime is punished, that targets are met to keep politicians happy, show cost effectiveness, secure their own advancement and ambition. The system is set up to see that someone gets held accountable for crime, and the precise details of who and whether they really did what they were they accused of is a lot more blurry.

Again, this is not the fault of the prosecutor per se. It's an entire system that encourages overlooking awkwardnesses, papering over cracks, using iffy dodges to secure the all important result of chalking up another solved case.

Agema:
Again, this is not the fault of the prosecutor per se. It's an entire system that encourages overlooking awkwardnesses, papering over cracks, using iffy dodges to secure the all important result of chalking up another solved case.

Excuse me everyone, it feels like I'm answering to everyone today.

In my last post to Gorfias, I linked to an article that stated the only bit of physical evidence that linked the Five to the crime were hairs that the prosecutor said matched Meili and the 5. However, an NYPD Detective under oath said that it was impossible to say the hairs matched. That they were constant and similar to, and took great pains in explaining how that is different that positively matching.

That Hair evidence being proved to being linked to no one in 2002.

That didn't stop her from hammering the point home that the hairs linked with the confessions meant they did it. That is completely the fault of the prosecutor.

Agema:

Again, this is not the fault of the prosecutor per se. It's an entire system that encourages overlooking awkwardnesses, papering over cracks, using iffy dodges to secure the all important result of chalking up another solved case.

I kind of think sending children to prison because you've got to send someone to prison really is a personal failing beyond the wider systemic failing. It's a little bit 'just following orders'.

I don't understand. Did the rape victim not have the ability to clarify if she had been assaulted by a single person or five people? It sounds like a pretty easy thing to point out. Why would she have let these innocent kids go to jail for years while knowing her actual rapist was out on the streets?

Based on what I heard, they found DNA evidence linking her rape to someone who admitted doing it. Alone. By himself. If we are to believe this evidence, we are asked to also believe that the victim couldn't tell the difference between one person or five people assaulting her. That just doesn't make sense. Was she racist too? Racist enough to let her rapist go free just so she could "get" those random kids? What's going on here?

Dreiko:
I don't understand. Did the rape victim not have the ability to clarify if she had been assaulted by a single person or five people? It sounds like a pretty easy thing to point out. Why would she have let these innocent kids go to jail for years while knowing her actual rapist was out on the streets?

Based on what I heard, they found DNA evidence linking her rape to someone who admitted doing it. Alone. By himself. If we are to believe this evidence, we are asked to also believe that the victim couldn't tell the difference between one person or five people assaulting her. That just doesn't make sense. Was she racist too? Racist enough to let her rapist go free just so she could "get" those random kids? What's going on here?

She was in a 12 day coma from the attack and suffered severe brain damage. Her injuries were so severe doctors feared she'd never wake up. When she first emerged from her coma, she was unable to talk, read or walk. The police basically filled in the blanks for her.

ObsidianJones:

Again, a confession they recanted when the alleged promise (That the police said they were just going to use them as witnesses instead of charging them with the crime) by the Police fell through.

As I shown in my last post to Gorfias, Feinstein used 'Hair Matching' to link the Five to the actual beating and rape of Meili. Hair matching that a NYPD Police Detective even said those hairs used didn't definitively match any of the five or the Jogger. And she used it anyway.

And the DNA came out in 2002 to not match anyone related to the case. But it was still used to help convict the Five. In fact, it was used in her closing arguments to help cement their actions against Meili.

The hair matching isn't hard evidence, correct. It's circumstantial evidence. And the DNA didn't come out to not match anyone charged in 2002. In 2002 the real perpetrator confessed and was matched to the DNA, but they knew at the time of trial that it didn't match anyone they are charging.

You can absolutely say that without the confessions there isn't strong evidence to make a case against the five. As there shouldn't be, since we know now they didn't commit the rape. But I don't think it's a case of choosing the coerced confessions over conflicting evidence, I don't think there was any conflicting evidence until the real rapist came forward a decade later. What the prosecutor had was weak evidence that gave credibility to confessions. And the defense certainly knows that without the confessions, there is really no case, and is going to try to recant them no matter what. Unless there's actual reason to believe the prosecutor was responsible for getting the confessions (and not just the Netflix version of events), I don't see how you lay that on the prosecutor. It's like getting mad at the bailiff for taking them into custody after the verdict comes down.

Agent_Z:

Dreiko:
I don't understand. Did the rape victim not have the ability to clarify if she had been assaulted by a single person or five people? It sounds like a pretty easy thing to point out. Why would she have let these innocent kids go to jail for years while knowing her actual rapist was out on the streets?

Based on what I heard, they found DNA evidence linking her rape to someone who admitted doing it. Alone. By himself. If we are to believe this evidence, we are asked to also believe that the victim couldn't tell the difference between one person or five people assaulting her. That just doesn't make sense. Was she racist too? Racist enough to let her rapist go free just so she could "get" those random kids? What's going on here?

She was in a 12 day coma from the attack and suffered severe brain damage. Her injuries were so severe doctors feared she'd never wake up. When she first emerged from her coma, she was unable to talk, read or walk. The police basically filled in the blanks for her.

Wow, that alone should have thrown the case out. If it was admitted in court and they convicted anyhow about the only explanation for their conviction would be incompetence on their lawyer's part.

ObsidianJones:

We don't have any word on whether Feinstein received the DNA and ignored it due to either police intervention or her Prosecutorial discretion.

Long post that will require some review. As always, thank you for the considered response. And the Netflix show is long! I do want to see it. I need to review quite a lot. I read that DNA was not ignored or simply wasn't something prosecutors were using at that time. Checking into it.
EDIT: https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2005/01/evolution-dna-evidence-crime-solving-judicial-and-legislative-history

This states DNA was still up in the air for use in courts into the 1990s. Lot more to check...

Dreiko:
Wow, that alone should have thrown the case out. If it was admitted in court and they convicted anyhow about the only explanation for their conviction would be incompetence on their lawyer's part.

Yep, definitely not because a lot of judges, including trial court judges in New York, are elected and may be hesitant to dismiss any case against a criminal defendant, much less in a trial with so much publicity that celebrities were making claims about it.

The Central Park 5 case is more an example of the worst elements of the various actors in the justice system. Police use poor and ineffective tactics that have been routinely shown to extract false confessions, Prosecutors, who advance in their careers by conviction numbers, prosecute many cases that should have never been charged, judges who need to be reelected every few years become very cautious about sentencing too leniently or siding with defense attorneys too often, the media takes clear sides and dramatizes the case, and underfunded and overworked defense attorneys essentially try to negotiate terms of surrender because they know the deck is stacked so the best they can do is try to get them out of prison before they're dead from old age. If you're a defendant, you're fucked.

This whole case makes me wonder if any kind of confessions made to police without a defense lawyer present should ever be considered at all.

Let's face it, a few hours shouting at me in an interrogation cell (no real need to lay a hand on me, just the threat of it is good enough) and I'll confess to anything you want.

Tireseas:

Dreiko:
Wow, that alone should have thrown the case out. If it was admitted in court and they convicted anyhow about the only explanation for their conviction would be incompetence on their lawyer's part.

Yep, definitely not because a lot of judges, including trial court judges in New York, are elected and may be hesitant to dismiss any case against a criminal defendant, much less in a trial with so much publicity that celebrities were making claims about it.

The Central Park 5 case is more an example of the worst elements of the various actors in the justice system. Police use poor and ineffective tactics that have been routinely shown to extract false confessions, Prosecutors, who advance in their careers by conviction numbers, prosecute many cases that should have never been charged, judges who need to be reelected every few years become very cautious about sentencing too leniently or siding with defense attorneys too often, the media takes clear sides and dramatizes the case, and underfunded and overworked defense attorneys essentially try to negotiate terms of surrender because they know the deck is stacked so the best they can do is try to get them out of prison before they're dead from old age. If you're a defendant, you're fucked.

Plus, you know, all the racism. The "Super Predator" crime bill was introduced with bipartisan support 5 years later

Linda Fairstein is a racist. Ann Coulter is a racist.

Saelune:
Ann Coulter is a racist.

Honestly, I think Ann Coulter might be insane. And a racist.

ObsidianJones:
Excuse me everyone, it feels like I'm answering to everyone today.

No worries.

In my last post to Gorfias, I linked to an article that stated the only bit of physical evidence that linked the Five to the crime were hairs that the prosecutor said matched Meili and the 5. However, an NYPD Detective under oath said that it was impossible to say the hairs matched. That they were constant and similar to, and took great pains in explaining how that is different that positively matching.

That Hair evidence being proved to being linked to no one in 2002.

That didn't stop her from hammering the point home that the hairs linked with the confessions meant they did it. That is completely the fault of the prosecutor.

It's her job to do that. The US legal system is based on the English legal system (like many ex-British colonies) and is an adversarial one where both sides are expected to make their case to maximum effect. A verbal gladiatorial contest without equivocation of half-measures. Each side does whatever it can within the rules to win: push anything that gains traction to the hilt and exploit the opposition's weaknesses mercilessly, and (in theory) what wins is truth. [1]

Baffle2:
I kind of think sending children to prison because you've got to send someone to prison really is a personal failing beyond the wider systemic failing. It's a little bit 'just following orders'.

A prosecutor gets evidence from the police, reviews it to see whether it will hold water, and if so goes with it. If it is deemed adequate to get through the courts, it suggests fair reason to believe the suspects are guilty. It's not like sending people they know full well are innocent into jail.

[1] Of course a reality here is that millions of Americans are stuck being defended by the dregs of the legal profession who often lack the will, skill or means to adequately defend their clients, leaving "equality before the law" as a bit of a joke).

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here