Prosecutor's Apology
Another article from the Statesman.com speaks about and I quote: "The people who are the system have the responsibility to maintain that system's integrity like it was their own because it is."
Systems Don't Fail; People Do
Did the preventable destruction of Micheal Morton's life and that of his family and also that of the victim's family change anything about how State District Judge Ken Anderson continues to operate in his position of influence and power? He, like so many others within our justice system, believe that they are truly immune from responsibility even though evidence proves they committed intentional violations to the very system they swore to uphold and protect. Until we the people demand a change to the system that requires accountability of "anyone" who violates the law and the constitution, these arrogant chosen individuals are going to continue to operate status quo and will continue to place other innocent lives in jeopardy.
I also wanted to share portions of an email from a good friend whose family has experienced first hand how the system can wrongfully destroy a family's lives. He references an earlier article about this same former prosecutor.
Although unrelated to our cases, the basis of wrongful convictions and unethical prosecution practices are the same. It appears to be so publicly correct and easy to make an apology without the element of any responsibility. It seems that 99% of the time, these prosecutors or judges, in spite of the overwhelming proof of their errors and misconduct, never admit responsibility. In fact most stand high and proud and stick with their original positions in these cases in spite of the facts.
Former Prosecutor Apologizes to Wrongfully Convicted Man
We caught a brief part of an episode of Dr. Phil yesterday (11/16/11) of his interview about the Casey Anthony case with the trial prosecutor and Marcia Clark. It was a joke to listen to. Here we have seasoned prosecutors, trained professions of law and our constitution, and all they could speak about was the "appearance and assumption" of her guilt based only on circumstances that a "normal person" would consider suspicious. Not once was there any acceptance of the fact that there was no evidence providing an exact cause of death or any direct evidence linking Casey to her daughter's death. Our guts can speak to us about how we feel about this case or that we feel she had something to do with it, but at the end of the day, our justice system must uphold the rules of evidence and reasonable doubt to ensure this system does what it is supposed to do. This unfortunate death, not unlike many of our cases, are tried on the court of public opinion. The mere thought of what "might have happened" as painted in a person's mind is strong enough to sway the strongest person into thinking that it is more probable to have occurred rather than not; in spite of any lack of evidence. Any natural selection of any jury, whether a Grand Jury or trial jury is becoming increasingly more difficult because of so much public exposure to the subject of crimes against children (any age under 18) and the understanding of the process of delayed reporting or denial of any contact as being an "expected" course of events. Even when recantments come forth by alleged victims well into their adult years, the prosecutors and courts tend to believe that they are coming forth due to family pressures rather than to speak about the truth. They tend to put less credibility upon them as adults than they did as likely incompetent testifying children. Especially when these "adults" expose the coaching and leading methods used to prepare for testimony, it gets explained away by prosecutors that "they were young and didn't comprehend or understand" the methods used on them as children. The prosecutors simply have it their way; on both ends if they are allowed to get away with it.
As Marcia Clark did yesterday on Dr. Phil, she ranted over the top of the speaking defense attorney on the panel, so only her rant could be heard and dribbling on only about supposition and emotional issues that drowned out the defenses' questions of the facts and lack of evidence in this case. Who do you suppose the audience or the public heard? The public would much rather watch a drama than a documentary. Fantasy versus Fact. It appears it's more important to feel good than to face the facts in this country. We see it in our courts, in our politics and in our community. It certainly is an up hill battle.
His response to some comments received:
Systems Don't Fail; People Do
Did the preventable destruction of Micheal Morton's life and that of his family and also that of the victim's family change anything about how State District Judge Ken Anderson continues to operate in his position of influence and power? He, like so many others within our justice system, believe that they are truly immune from responsibility even though evidence proves they committed intentional violations to the very system they swore to uphold and protect. Until we the people demand a change to the system that requires accountability of "anyone" who violates the law and the constitution, these arrogant chosen individuals are going to continue to operate status quo and will continue to place other innocent lives in jeopardy.
I also wanted to share portions of an email from a good friend whose family has experienced first hand how the system can wrongfully destroy a family's lives. He references an earlier article about this same former prosecutor.
Although unrelated to our cases, the basis of wrongful convictions and unethical prosecution practices are the same. It appears to be so publicly correct and easy to make an apology without the element of any responsibility. It seems that 99% of the time, these prosecutors or judges, in spite of the overwhelming proof of their errors and misconduct, never admit responsibility. In fact most stand high and proud and stick with their original positions in these cases in spite of the facts.
Former Prosecutor Apologizes to Wrongfully Convicted Man
We caught a brief part of an episode of Dr. Phil yesterday (11/16/11) of his interview about the Casey Anthony case with the trial prosecutor and Marcia Clark. It was a joke to listen to. Here we have seasoned prosecutors, trained professions of law and our constitution, and all they could speak about was the "appearance and assumption" of her guilt based only on circumstances that a "normal person" would consider suspicious. Not once was there any acceptance of the fact that there was no evidence providing an exact cause of death or any direct evidence linking Casey to her daughter's death. Our guts can speak to us about how we feel about this case or that we feel she had something to do with it, but at the end of the day, our justice system must uphold the rules of evidence and reasonable doubt to ensure this system does what it is supposed to do. This unfortunate death, not unlike many of our cases, are tried on the court of public opinion. The mere thought of what "might have happened" as painted in a person's mind is strong enough to sway the strongest person into thinking that it is more probable to have occurred rather than not; in spite of any lack of evidence. Any natural selection of any jury, whether a Grand Jury or trial jury is becoming increasingly more difficult because of so much public exposure to the subject of crimes against children (any age under 18) and the understanding of the process of delayed reporting or denial of any contact as being an "expected" course of events. Even when recantments come forth by alleged victims well into their adult years, the prosecutors and courts tend to believe that they are coming forth due to family pressures rather than to speak about the truth. They tend to put less credibility upon them as adults than they did as likely incompetent testifying children. Especially when these "adults" expose the coaching and leading methods used to prepare for testimony, it gets explained away by prosecutors that "they were young and didn't comprehend or understand" the methods used on them as children. The prosecutors simply have it their way; on both ends if they are allowed to get away with it.
As Marcia Clark did yesterday on Dr. Phil, she ranted over the top of the speaking defense attorney on the panel, so only her rant could be heard and dribbling on only about supposition and emotional issues that drowned out the defenses' questions of the facts and lack of evidence in this case. Who do you suppose the audience or the public heard? The public would much rather watch a drama than a documentary. Fantasy versus Fact. It appears it's more important to feel good than to face the facts in this country. We see it in our courts, in our politics and in our community. It certainly is an up hill battle.
His response to some comments received:
I too was surprised of the reaction to the Anthony verdict by some I thought would truly see that this verdict was lawfully correct. But what happened after this trial, especially to the jurors who spoke out defending their positions of their verdicts, makes me wonder if it's possible to en-panel a group of unbiased jurors when a case involves children. The public wanted to lynch these jurors because they didn't feel good about the outcome. Is the public that naive about how our justice system is supposed to really work and have come to accept this sort of made for TV justice as reality?
The first words to any person subjected by law enforcement is "ignorance of the law is no excuse". How can any layperson ever understand the convoluted interpretations of the most common laws or even our constitution? As simple as one believes "Miranda" is; it has been twisted and bent into something in so many ways, how could anyone possible assume that it is really protecting any of us? The public has the perception that cops, prosecutors and judges are the "good guys" wearing the white hats of justice; allowing them instant credibility in standing on its own. In spite of the constant bombardment by the likes of Frontline, Dateline, 20/20 and others, exposing countless cases of misconduct, strong arm confessions, false statements and blatant constitutional right violations; the public still sees them as the good guys instead of the "good old boys" they really are. Even the power of the big media doesn't seem to open the eyes of enough people to become outraged enough to seek out the truth and demand reform and a just system of justice. It just comes back to the fundamental cause and effect of "not getting involved" because these unethical actions don't have any immediate effect upon them or their lives. Whether they are sitting in the jury box or in their easy chair in front of the TV, the participation is the same. And at the end of the day, they go back to the simplicity of their lives or simply change the channel to watch the next drama unfold in front of them without a clue of what the storyline truly is about.
I am a fan of David E. Kelley's Boston Legal and Harry's Law. Not because so much for the comical entertainment value; but for the messages about real life issues being put in your face to think about. I'm not so sure most who watch really get it or understand; but have found myself entrenched in their arguments of defense and angered by the realistic portrayal of arrogant and egotistical prosecutors that seem to simply "play" with the lives of innocent people to fulfill the prophecies of their office and positions of power. All being so very true to life. But again, do people really get whats going on? I suppose that many of us had lead pretty assumptive lives prior to having it exploited and turned upside down. I'm sure as it was with us, that the truth is obvious and investigators, the professionals that they are, will also recognize the truth and this will be resolved; no harm, no foul. Well, we all know how we now look at every sliver of detail looking for the very protections or proof that these so-called professionals left out or excluded to favor their positions. Now we no longer trust any news article or press release because we wonder what are the real facts behind these allegations and who is really telling the truth. We wonder what the motive might be of the accuser in light of the allegations against the accused. We are the "Doubting Thomas's" of the legal world because we have paid a price to be here and earned that position.
Maybe we cannot change the thinking of the average American into understanding what it is we feel or our compassion to correct the so many wrongs committed against us and our loved ones. That is monumental task that even the media hasn't really accomplished in our favor. As I said previously, as many documentaries or investigative reports are aired, the mindset seems to support that Law and Order and CSI are the real deal; the good guys always catch the right bad guy (without harmful error) and justice is served once again by those knights in shining armor. But I think that we and others who are or have lived these nightmares can do is share our stories, not so much so people feel our pain, but to understand that these injustices are happening to real people by real people. That the responsibilities of serving as a juror is important and that standing on your merits and ethical and moral principles is only correct if you can make a sound decision based only in fact and evidence that is free of any doubt. Jury instruction and responsibility is paramount for a fair and unbiased trial. Most of us lost at trial because of emotional juries. The facts were hardly heard over the emotional pleading of the prosecutors. Again, who do these people believe? The court will instruct them to leave your emotions aside. The prosecutor will reinforce this during opening statements, then builds their case on circumstances and probabilities when there is a lack of evidence and definitive facts. As in our son's case, during jury selection, the DA openly states to the sitting panel and the 100+ others in the room that this is not like CSI or Law and Order because there isn't any DNA evidence to test, so don't expect to see or hear any evidence of this sort. In my mind, the message was clear, there is no physical evidence but it's okay to find him guilty without evidence because the testimony you will hear is about the horrible acts the defendant committed against these innocent children. Children don't lie. DA's don't lie and only seek the truth; therefore evidence is not required or expected to find him guilty. And finding him guilty will make you feel good because you are protecting these child victims. You and I know that this is not okay; but this is exactly why so many ARE convicted and why everyone stands behind those decisions as being reasonable and justified. This is WHAT we have to change. Convictions are simply too difficult to undo after they happen. We have to stop them during the process and demand that jurors understand their true responsibilities and that they recognize the BS when it is staring them in the face!
Again, I don't know how to do this, but I know it has to be tried.
The first words to any person subjected by law enforcement is "ignorance of the law is no excuse". How can any layperson ever understand the convoluted interpretations of the most common laws or even our constitution? As simple as one believes "Miranda" is; it has been twisted and bent into something in so many ways, how could anyone possible assume that it is really protecting any of us? The public has the perception that cops, prosecutors and judges are the "good guys" wearing the white hats of justice; allowing them instant credibility in standing on its own. In spite of the constant bombardment by the likes of Frontline, Dateline, 20/20 and others, exposing countless cases of misconduct, strong arm confessions, false statements and blatant constitutional right violations; the public still sees them as the good guys instead of the "good old boys" they really are. Even the power of the big media doesn't seem to open the eyes of enough people to become outraged enough to seek out the truth and demand reform and a just system of justice. It just comes back to the fundamental cause and effect of "not getting involved" because these unethical actions don't have any immediate effect upon them or their lives. Whether they are sitting in the jury box or in their easy chair in front of the TV, the participation is the same. And at the end of the day, they go back to the simplicity of their lives or simply change the channel to watch the next drama unfold in front of them without a clue of what the storyline truly is about.
I am a fan of David E. Kelley's Boston Legal and Harry's Law. Not because so much for the comical entertainment value; but for the messages about real life issues being put in your face to think about. I'm not so sure most who watch really get it or understand; but have found myself entrenched in their arguments of defense and angered by the realistic portrayal of arrogant and egotistical prosecutors that seem to simply "play" with the lives of innocent people to fulfill the prophecies of their office and positions of power. All being so very true to life. But again, do people really get whats going on? I suppose that many of us had lead pretty assumptive lives prior to having it exploited and turned upside down. I'm sure as it was with us, that the truth is obvious and investigators, the professionals that they are, will also recognize the truth and this will be resolved; no harm, no foul. Well, we all know how we now look at every sliver of detail looking for the very protections or proof that these so-called professionals left out or excluded to favor their positions. Now we no longer trust any news article or press release because we wonder what are the real facts behind these allegations and who is really telling the truth. We wonder what the motive might be of the accuser in light of the allegations against the accused. We are the "Doubting Thomas's" of the legal world because we have paid a price to be here and earned that position.
Maybe we cannot change the thinking of the average American into understanding what it is we feel or our compassion to correct the so many wrongs committed against us and our loved ones. That is monumental task that even the media hasn't really accomplished in our favor. As I said previously, as many documentaries or investigative reports are aired, the mindset seems to support that Law and Order and CSI are the real deal; the good guys always catch the right bad guy (without harmful error) and justice is served once again by those knights in shining armor. But I think that we and others who are or have lived these nightmares can do is share our stories, not so much so people feel our pain, but to understand that these injustices are happening to real people by real people. That the responsibilities of serving as a juror is important and that standing on your merits and ethical and moral principles is only correct if you can make a sound decision based only in fact and evidence that is free of any doubt. Jury instruction and responsibility is paramount for a fair and unbiased trial. Most of us lost at trial because of emotional juries. The facts were hardly heard over the emotional pleading of the prosecutors. Again, who do these people believe? The court will instruct them to leave your emotions aside. The prosecutor will reinforce this during opening statements, then builds their case on circumstances and probabilities when there is a lack of evidence and definitive facts. As in our son's case, during jury selection, the DA openly states to the sitting panel and the 100+ others in the room that this is not like CSI or Law and Order because there isn't any DNA evidence to test, so don't expect to see or hear any evidence of this sort. In my mind, the message was clear, there is no physical evidence but it's okay to find him guilty without evidence because the testimony you will hear is about the horrible acts the defendant committed against these innocent children. Children don't lie. DA's don't lie and only seek the truth; therefore evidence is not required or expected to find him guilty. And finding him guilty will make you feel good because you are protecting these child victims. You and I know that this is not okay; but this is exactly why so many ARE convicted and why everyone stands behind those decisions as being reasonable and justified. This is WHAT we have to change. Convictions are simply too difficult to undo after they happen. We have to stop them during the process and demand that jurors understand their true responsibilities and that they recognize the BS when it is staring them in the face!
Again, I don't know how to do this, but I know it has to be tried.
Comments
Post a Comment