Amanda Truth Project

Shaken Baby Syndrome: Potential Pandemic Medical Misdiagnosis - We educate communities about this potential pediatric misdiagnosis and help families, their lawyers and medical experts find the TRUTH.

Blog

Problems with Justice: How Far is Too Far for a Conviction?

Posted on October 3, 2009 at 6:06 PM

It made front page news in Ohio (2008) about how a prosecutor used tainted "eye-witness" testimony to get 15 men into prison - convicted of selling cocaine to the informant. This perjured testimony is what was used to convict the 1st defendant (Geneva France) to 10 years. The rest of the 14 fell into line afterward and took pleas. France protested her innocence and is "a mother of three with no record."

 

Combined, these defendants have now spent 30 years in prison based on testimony that was eventually recanted in 2007 by the informant. Some of these men had "no prior run-ins with the law" according to the article in the Plain Dealer on January 23, 2008.

 

Despite everything, prosecutors refuse to "characterize the men as innocent." Why? Their cases were largely based on the informant's testimony? This informant has admitted to lying.

 

Originally the grand jury indicted 26 people in this drug bust case. Now these defendants are going back in front of the judge to be set free; there is no evidence to convict them of selling cocaine to the informant if the informant says it was all a lie to begin with.

 

So how far is too far? We've all heard stories in recent years where a convicted rapist who protested his innocence the entire time spends 18+ years in prison for a crime he didn't commit - proven after DNA testing finally shows he was nowhere near the crime!

 

How bloodthirsty are we as a society that we need to have someone to blame for every crime? Are we so worried to have open cases that we're willing to convict the nearest scapegoat so that we can feel "safe" again? How much pressure do we put on prosecutors to win their cases? Is it so great that they're willing to do whatever it takes to make sure they win their case now-a-days? Or is it such a new thing after all? How long has this been going on - really?

 

Interesting to me is that this online version of the article is missing a few key sentences that were in the printed version, namely regarding how this particular prosecutor likes to win "big" cases and often has. What am I to take away from that? Why are those couple sentences missing now? What are we afraid of? The truth?

 

Our justice system has needed a rehaul since a long time. Otherwise, men on death row wouldn't be getting released based on the DNA evidence proving someone else committed the crime, of which they were tried and convicted. It's not escaping my notice that 14 out of 15 defendants too pleas and that's considered justice in this day and age either.

 

Does anyone get their right to a trial anymore? I understand our courts are jammed to the corners with paperwork filed and defendants to try. However, my question is if there was less corruption in the ranks maybe those defendants wouldn't be on trial in the first place. Why not do things right and get the conviction the old fashioned way? Why are so many people being denied their rights and bulllied and scared into taking pleas anymore?

 

I don't know if this is happening all over, but it's certainly a problem in Northeast Ohio the past decade or more. I saw it during jury duty when the defense attorney asked if they took fingerprints to prove the defendant was even at the man's home that night. The officer told him, "No. Usually when we have an eye witness..." I have to admit I was more than a little concerned at that point. So one white man points at a black man...and that's all that was needed to put this man in jail until his trial came up 1 year later? Unbelievable, but true.

 

Something needs to change. Our rights were quite clear in the Constitution: due process and all that.

 

Due process includes, but is not limited to things like:

 

* Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner

* Right to be present at the trial

* Right to an impartial jury

* Right to be heard in one's own defense

 

Now we all know that doesn't happen all the time. My question is when does it happen? I'm starting to see more and more of these articles where people are being released. The only surprising thing to me in this instance is that it was on the front page of the paper, not tucked away safely and quietly in the Metro section where all of the local news is usually printed.

 

Does this mean a new dawn for an age of honesty in court rooms? If we can't trust our police and district attorneys, who can we trust?

 

Link to the article is here: http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/iscri/120108062741840.xml&coll=2


"Americans should ask why the US locks up so many more of its citizens than do Canada, Britain, and other democratic countries. The US is even ahead of governments like China that use prisons as a political tool." ~ David Fathi, director, US Program of Human Rights Watch

Categories: Problems in Justice System

Post a Comment

Oops!

Oops, you forgot something.

Oops!

The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

Already a member? Sign In

24 Comments

Reply Neurontine
2:13 PM on October 10, 2021 
Dental Prophylaxis Amoxicillin
Reply Drirway
1:33 AM on October 10, 2021 
Neurontine
Reply crickus
7:55 AM on October 6, 2021 
https://prednisonebuyon.com/ - purchase prednisone
Reply ordering cheap prednisone without x
6:58 PM on October 2, 2021 
Discount For Plavix
Reply Insunda
3:34 PM on October 2, 2021 
Reply Horgild
6:41 PM on September 22, 2021 
Reply Insudge
4:36 PM on September 21, 2021 
Zithromax
Reply unerePusa
9:41 AM on September 20, 2021 
Plaquenil
Reply kicerty
2:53 AM on September 20, 2021 
https://buyzithromaxinf.com/ - antibiotic azithromycin
Reply vixlierne
6:02 AM on September 17, 2021 
Priligy
Reply how does plaquenil work for autoimmune diseases
2:12 AM on September 17, 2021 
Xenical Prix Remboursement
Reply azithromycin
11:32 PM on September 16, 2021 
Canadian Pharmacy Stock
Reply Gloncunny
9:15 PM on September 16, 2021 
Reply emparee
12:07 AM on September 16, 2021 
Reply ivermectin cats
9:41 AM on September 11, 2021 
acheter cialis livraison 24h
Reply Fentinilk
7:28 AM on September 9, 2021 
Reply Cialis
4:54 AM on August 30, 2021 
Generic Elocon On Sale Secure Ordering C.O.D. Rhode Island
Reply Vedgevine
6:48 PM on August 29, 2021 
Stromectol
Reply annoryjaf
11:37 PM on August 28, 2021 
http://buytadalafshop.com/ - buy cialis online uk
Reply DJT
3:11 AM on November 23, 2009 
In many cases where a plea bargain agreement is struck, a trial may have already been on the docket, or in the planning stages. We don't know when the defendants in the above example took plea bargains. It could even have been during a trial, I think, at least before the verdict was read. It doesn't say one way or another. In a case I'm working on, the evidentiary 3.5 hearing had concluded and they were going to come back and seat a jury when he was threatened with a certain conviction (based on symptoms alone, with no evidence of criminal intent or who did what) and at least 40 years in prison unless he accepted a plea bargain for 12 years. At least he was allowed to sign an Alford plea in which the accused claims innocence but acknowledges that the evidence might lead to a conviction. Elwood wasn't given that kind of a break.