Friday, December 2, 2011

DNA: REACTION TO ANDREW MARTIN'S NYT MAGAZINE ARTICLE "THE PROSECUTION'S CASE AGAINST DNA." SOME GREAT READS. (HL);


"The delusional and unjust behavior of these prosecutors is the best argument against the death penalty and for the long-term preservation of DNA evidence that I have ever seen. These prosecutors have decided what they believe (for self-serving reasons, one way or another), and aren't about to let evidence or fairness stand in their way."

LETTER; NEW YORK TIMES;

---------------------------------------------------------

In Lake County, Ill., new DNA evidence doesn’t necessarily set men free; it just changes the theory of how they committed the crime.

1.
arod
San Diego
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
Prosecutors are using false accusers to increase their power, numbers and statistics. The authorities are media seeking, revenue generating, agenda driven by exploiting or manipulating charges, whether real or inflated. The general public does not know about all of the corruption in law enforcement. The current system rubber stamps criminal charges.

The prosecutors’ career is enhanced by being known as a "Winner" which acts as a magnet for more high profile cases which includes a professional landscape of increased compensation and status. "Winner" prosecutors are promoted and rewarded by the governor and are appointed as judges. Any efforts to expose prosecutorial misconduct are often met with increased and intensified misconduct and a much longer sentence for the defendant. A government job for life, which pays the mortgage, your new car, good wages, overtime, security, and holidays. The main job of the managers is to ensure that next year’s revenue exceeds this year’s revenue. Prosecutors don’t even look at the evidence but rather negotiate the plea deal based on the accusation charge sheet: number of years the defendant is facing. This brews an environment of guilty by accusation. Rather than honestly accept that their case is weak or nonexistent, they instead choose to run with it, ignoring and excluding (with the help of the trial judge) evidence that would point to innocence, and rallying behind extremely weak evidence. Arrests are made on little or no evidence. Judges are not fair and impartial because most of them were former prosecutors and favor the prosecution. Prosecutors have withheld and destroy exculpatory evidence. The government can trick a jury into returning a tainted verdict based on false evidence. Detectives have lied, used trickery, and engaged in witness tampering and hardly investigate.
2.
arod
San Diego
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
A person is usually held on high bail and coerced into confessing through lengthy pre trial detention 2 years being the minimum before a trial, (See Star Chamber). There are virtually no jury trials because most cases are settled in plea bargain agreements. 95% of all criminal accusations are settled in plea agreements. The government will offer the defendant 2 years in a plea deal. If the innocent refuses, he is then threatened that if he were to lose at trial, he will get 20 years. They are not concerned with truth or justice but rather with convictions. The State Bar knows about all of the corruption but does not discipline its members. You are guilty until proven innocent; the accusation is the conviction in today’s legal system. The government has unlimited resources to prosecute, where an ordinary person has limited funds to investigate, locate witnesses, and hire experts.

Many witnesses and defendants have said they were pressured into making false confessions and false statements. Some were threatened with life imprisonment and have pled guilty to lesser charges. Some said they were told that if they confessed they wouldn’t go to jail. Many were told they would never see their children again unless they signed a confession. Those questioned also said they were told that their children wouldn’t be placed in foster care or put up for adoption if they signed confessions. Defendants have been told that there were witnesses and that others had already confessed; when this was not true. Some defendants’ have been beaten and have had bones broken in order to obtain false confessions. Lies, brainwashing, suggestibility, manipulations, coaching, rehearsed memories, and leading questions serve as the collective truth of the State. Prosecutors and police will never talk about the tampering with witnesses mentioned above in jury trials.
3.
frankly speaking
WA
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
Whoa - While DNA may not be the last word on innocence when factored in with other evidence in a crime, this Prosecution idea of changing the theory of the crime to fit new evidence is often delusional self-rationalization. The theory of the crime is an important factor in convincing a jury to convict. I mean if the crime occurred ten hours earlier, not at the place proposed by the prosecution, with a different weapon, and was the work of a group rather than an individual, then then coherence of the evidence has been wrecked and with it the case. Under our Constitution, the Prosecution doesn't get the opportunity to re-try a case on appeal. If the evidence is thrown into such disarray that a radically new theory of the crime is required, the convicted person deserves a new trial. After all, these are the same prosecutor's who intimidate 70+ per cent of defendants to plead to lesser charges - often throwing a whole array of more serious charges at them if they want a trial. I can't help but think that having a high visibility violent case fall apart over DNA evidence is budget-busting and political royal pain for them. But when we are talking convictions for charges that can result in life imprisonment or even execution, a new trial is not too much trouble.
4.
arod
San Diego
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
The whole manner in which cases are handled undercuts the presumption of innocence. The criminal justice system should be accurate, fair, and just.

Mirroring the prosecution are inexperienced, lazy, incompetent, court-appointed public defenders, tend to be overworked and underfunded and hence are more likely to cut corners. Little work is done by the defense: few motions filed, few witnesses called, little or no investigative work prior to trial, little cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, absence of expert witnesses to counter experts called by the prosecution. Many private attorneys charge as much money as they can, with no results. Sometimes the lawyer's biggest error is a naive belief that a jury will not convict because the evidence is so weak. In fact, many jurors expect defendants to prove they are innocent, not just poke holes in the prosecution's case. Plenty of jurors assume that defendants wouldn't be on trial if they hadn't done something bad.
5.
lawstudent
Burlington, VT
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
The behavior by prosecutors described in this article is highly unethical. Prosecutors are supposed to seek justice on behalf of the people, not obtain convictions at any cost. Mermel should be reported to the Bar and subjected to disciplinary proceedings, at the very least.

However, this egregious misconduct (which is so much broader than the article even addresses - for example, the fact that prosecutors regularly extort guilty pleas by threatening absurd amounts of jail time) occurs because we the people enable it. We elect these prosecutors. We elect legislators that routinely criminalize trivial conduct so that prosecutors and police can go after people for pretty much any reason at any time. We support sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences that stamp out judicial discretion and continue this unwarranted transfer of power to the executive arm of the state.

The criminal justice system in this country is fundamentally broken, and it will loom as one of the largest crimes against humanity in the history of the United States, second only to slavery. WE allowed this to happen.
6.
DD
Los Angeles
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
It is very important to understand that every prosecutor's advancement in their department is wholly contingent upon their conviction rate.

What this means is: the more people they put away, deservedly or not, the farther they advance in their career, the more money they make, the better things are for them.

It's an outrageously biased system: poor defendants with overworked underpaid Public Defenders vs. the money and might of the government.

This is why prosecutors pull endless additional charges against defendants out of their rectum. They convince defendants who are poor and must use overworked and underpaid Public Defenders that if they don't plead guilty to the major charge, additional charges will be piled on until a shoplifting charge becomes armed robbery because the perpetrator was carrying a 2 inch folding knife in their pocket. I have seen this particular scenario happen to someone I know.

People with money who can afford a proper defense don't have this problem. The conviction rate of those using private attorneys who have the time and resources to make prosecutors actually prove their case, have a MUCH lower conviction rate than the poor. When an attorney has the time and resources to stand up to the DA, conviction rates fall through the floor.

The prosecution's ability to suddenly change the theory of the crime because evidence shows their original theory to be invalid needs to be severely modified by law to keep these cowboys, who apparently answer to no one, from simply riding roughshod over the justice system in an effort to keep their numbers up, and ultimately, to keep their job.
7.
DD
Los Angeles
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
It is very important to understand that every prosecutor's advancement in their department is wholly contingent upon their conviction rate.

What this means is: the more people they put away, deservedly or not, the farther they advance in their career, the more money they make, the better things are for them.

It's an outrageously biased system: poor defendants with overworked underpaid Public Defenders vs. the money and might of the government.

This is why prosecutors file endless additional charges against defendants. They convince defendants who are poor and must use overworked and underpaid Public Defenders that if they don't plead guilty to the major charge, additional charges will be piled on until a shoplifting charge becomes armed robbery because the perpetrator was carrying a 2 inch folding knife in their pocket. I have seen this particular scenario happen to someone I know.

People with money who can afford a proper defense don't have this problem. The conviction rate of those using private attorneys who have the time and resources to make prosecutors actually prove their case, have a MUCH lower conviction rate than the poor. When an attorney has the time and resources to stand up to the DA, conviction rates fall through the floor.

The prosecution's ability to suddenly change the theory of the crime because evidence shows their original theory to be invalid needs to be severely modified by law to keep these cowboys, who apparently answer to no one, from simply riding roughshod over the justice system in an effort to keep their numbers up, and ultimately, to keep their job.
8.
Bob
Seattle
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
It is very helpful to have this kind of information about the interrogators and prosecutors that so clearly shows how they are themselves committing crimes under the cover of the justice system. The prosecutors' refusal to take DNA evidence seriously is not -- as they would have us believe -- a zeal for justice but rather to cover up crimes by others in the interrogation process and by the prosecutors themselves in knowingly using such confessions. The Western system of justice has relied on physical and psychological torture for several centuries. There is no lack of evidence for the success of this 'third degree' of interrogation in obtaining confessions. Nothing will change until the police who administer it and the prosecutors who use its results are themselves convicted of crime and punished. Interrogation and trial are all part of the larger process of society's revenge. The word 'punishment' as used in the constitution's prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishment' clearly means, as the OED shows, the whole process of societal revenge. We have a constitutional right not to be subjected to 'cruel and unjust' interrogation and prosecution. We need standards of interrogation and prosecution so clearly stated that those who violate them can be and also are convicted and punished.
9.
Raspberry Rise
Hallstead, PA
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
Year after year, well documented, thoroughly researched stories such as this one are published, and year after year prosecutors, law enforcement officers and judges are shown to be egotistical people more interested in their reputations than in justice. I think we all recognize that these prosecutorial jobs (and the like) are difficult ones. However, that is no excuse for the rampant abuse of power to satisfy the needs of the victims families, and the community and to boost individuals' egos and their stock in that very community, all at the expense of the innocent. It breaks my heart and I don't understand it. Why don't the state courts want the truth to be told? Why is law enforcement satisfied with coercing false confessions? Aren't these people paid whether or not they get a false confession or a real one; a conviction or not? Certainly, no one benefits from all this injustice.
10.
disenchanted
san francisco
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
Mermel is wrong about what taxpayers pay prosecutors for. The public pays prosecutors to do justice, not to get convictions - that's why criminal cases are brought in the name of "the People" or "the State" and not in the names of individual victims. Granted, most convictions are just. There are plenty, however, that are unjust and reflect the "conviction" of the prosecution and police that the defendant must be guilty. Ego, self-interest, and rationalization can blur reason in any situation, but they're especially dangerous and unacceptable when they lead to incarceration or, worse, execution of innocent people.
11.
rohit
New York
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
I wonder when America is going to cease its war against its own men. True, some men do not behave well, but most do. But men always have the fact to fear that the word "perp" will apply to them at the drop of a hat and with little justification. Laws on divorce and custody discriminate in favor of wives and against husbands. And men who lose their jobs and fall behind in child support payments end up in prison, subject to humiliating conditions and even rape.

America is obsessed with the idea of women as victims and men as perps, but the reality is not quite so simple. DSK who may or may not have done anything bad in 9 minutes risks decades of prison. A woman apparently responsible for the death of her own child goes free.

One might ask, "How can a country run by men discriminate against men?" and to see the answer look at the behavior of males in countless species. Males attack males of their own species, far often than they attack females. In America the males attacking other males use the law. They put other males in prison or send them out to Vietnam to fight pointless wars. But it is the same pattern.

Justice demands that both genders have to be treated as fairness. But we are blind, wilfully blind, to the fact that when we use the term sexism we ONLY mean sexism which affects women unfavorably. When 58,000 men die in Vietnam, we do not use the word sexism even though it belongs there far more appropriately than it does to a woman lawyer whose salary is less than that of her male partners.
12.
RC
Pompano Beach FL
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
I can’t fathom confessing to something that I didn’t do. That may be easy for me to say, having never been subjected to hours (days) of intensive and intimidating interrogation. But I know myself, and I know that I wouldn’t confess to minor shoplifting, if I was innocent… let alone a crime of such a heinous nature as has been described in this article.

The article brings to light a major flaw in the *justice* system, that anyone that has been grabbed by the justice systems talons knows quite well. And that is, that the justice system has very little (if anything at all) to do with seeking justice… and has everything to do with seeking convictions and/or acquittals… no matter the relative guilt or innocence of the accused.

We expect more from the system, but our expectations, though righteous, are unrealistic. People comprise the cogs of the machinery of the system, and people are fallible, biased, subjective, prejudicial, and probably most importantly, have their own self-interests at the core of their motivation(s).

Or in other words, they’re at least somewhat corrupt, all the way up to being overtly corrupt. Prosecutors are the worst… and they wield the most clout, having the police and often the judges necessarily in their corners.

The FBI has been pinched at least a few times in the past years for manipulating evidence in their crime labs, for the purpose of assisting prosecutors garner convictions. If they’re out to get you, you don’t stand a chance… unless you’re extremely wealthy and/or have powerful string-pulling connections.

Which excludes most of the population of the US.
13.
Anonymous
Palo Alto, CA
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
The delusional and unjust behavior of these prosecutors is the best argument against the death penalty and for the long-term preservation of DNA evidence that I have ever seen. These prosecutors have decided what they believe (for self-serving reasons, one way or another), and aren't about to let evidence or fairness stand in their way.
14.
Alan
Chicago, IL
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
The most effective way to stop these repulsive travesties of justice that continue unabated despite overwhelming contrary evidence is to make it a crime punishable with long incarceration to willfully coerce into confession and prosecute people for crime they did not commit. It is time people like Mermel and Tessman were put in jail before they ruin more lives using the apparatus of justice for their personal satisfaction.
15.
terry
washingtonville, new york
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
The simple remedy is banning confessions. J Suart Mill remarked two centuries ago it is far easier to throw pepper into a man's eyes than to go out in the hot sun and actually work. If a suspect actually yields an unknown fact then that fact can be confirmed and offered into evidence, but with no relation to the suspect.

How can we tell kids science is important when in the face of indisputable evidence Rivera is not guilty the games are played with Tessman, who likely could not even ID what DNA stands for? The important crime here is Mermel walks. This is known as finding the salient fact.
16.
Fannie
Brooklyn, New York
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
Thank you so much for this article. I very much hope a correct DNA match can be found, so that Mr. Rivera can be exonerated and set free. Our system is clearly flawed - thankfully DNA testing can help solve these kinds of cases. But, our system is not perfect, and articles such as this one help us all to know more, and want to support any changes in procedure that can avoid the incarceration of innocent people.
17.
Andrew
Minneapolis
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
The behavior of the 11 year old victim described in the confession sounds highly implausible. This together with the exculpatory DNA evidence constitutes plenty of reasonable doubt. It sounds like this suspect has been railroaded by prosecutors, something that seems to happen altogether too often in this country.
18.
JH
Astoria
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
It sounds like the prosecutor and at least one of the detectives involved belong in jail. Getting a conviction is NOT their job. Finding the actual criminals and keeping them from hurting others is their job. Instead they find weak/sick people to question for 24 hours straight, which amounts to torture. Unfortunately, few people understand the power of psychological torture, so the confessions aren't questioned. I have little doubt that these "law enforcement" people have directly lead to more deaths by ignoring the truly dangerous people.
19.
rp
Dallas, TX
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
So DNA testing is so sensitive that it can detect sperm that gets in your orifices as you're playing in the woods or that you get on your hands from the TV remote, but it's not sensitive enough to detect direct contact from the person who, supposedly, murdered the victim?

A friend of mine once said that we'll see wholesale changes in the justice system as soon as we find a case in which another person is murdered while the wrong person is sitting behind bars. But now we've seen several instances of wrongful convictions being overturned with the real perpetrator having gone on to murder others while the wrong person was in prison, and everybody just shrugs their shoulders and keeps voting in the same people who couldn't get it right the first time.

Clearly, the American public just wants convictions, they don't really care if the person convicted actually did the crime. And if a three year-old girl (like Caitlin Baker in Texas) has to grow up without a mother because prosecutors couldn't be bothered to follow up on evidence (or turn it over to the defense) in a previous case (the Christine Morton murder), then that's just her tough luck.
20.
Reno, NV
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
OMG! Really? I highly doubt these ridiculous theories of how another man's semen mysteriously ended up in a victim's vagina on the same day they were supposedly murdered by the suspect du jour. Especially if they were minors at the time.

How can a person honestly believe that these women and girls who were raped and killed, had consensual sex with someone else moments before they were murdered? Or that pubic hairs were left by a moving man's naked crotch coming into contact with a mattress and he wouldn't be the prime suspect?

This is only possible if you believe that the girls and women were of loose moral character and must have brought the crime on themselves. In other words, blame the victim, ignore the evidence, rely on coerced confessions, convict an easy target, never admit you might have made a mistake and run for office touting how hard on crime you are.

No wonder people don't have faith in the "justice" system.
21.
TERMINATOR
Philly, PA
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
This almost reads like a comedy, although dramedy is more apropos. It's very disconcerting that 3 separate juries can be so utterly clueless. Not even one "reasonable doubt" on a rape of an 11-year-old where semen in strategically inexplicable places doesn't match the suspect? And the part about getting it from "playing the woods" or from popcorn movie night is hilarious, but at the same time pathetic.

And how many 11-year-olds do you know who make fun of 6' 3" man because they "can't get it up?" Not even the most promiscuous 11-year-old talks like that. That sounds more like how a street smart 19-year-old guy claims an 11-year-old talks when he doesn't properly think through how implausible such a statement would be coming from a child.

Unfortunately, it must be something in the water table in Illinois since Holly's own twin sister doesn't see any problems. Apparently she never watched any one of dozens of shows on TruTV and similar networks on false confessions and how they're not only more prevalent than previously thought, but fairly easy to induce with things like, you know, little things like sleep deprivation, repetitive questions on the same topic until the person finally relents in the hope of going home or giving the cops what they want to here (so they can go home), etc.. Virtually any prosecutor in the country worth their salt who reads this case is rolling his or her eyes and embarrassed to be seen in public. Well, hopefully 80% at least.

What's also frightening is that 20% of the prosecutors in the U.S. will read this article and not see anything wrong whatsoever with Mermel's arguments.
22.
arod
San Diego
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
There is a huge amount of bribery in San Diego and around the country in America, perhaps even more than in the courts of any other country in the world. Nearly all bribes are given to the judges by lawyers; this is considered the safe way to bribe a judge. Bribery is rarely spoken about, just understood. People pay huge amounts of money to law firms with connections, the lawyers walk around with a certain amount of cash in their jacket, and they pass it to the judges in their quiet moments together. It is mostly all cash of course. Sometimes the bribery is blatantly obvious, because of the other crimes that lawyers and judges commit in broad daylight together. In the courtrooms you can see the judges being extremely friendly to their rich lawyer friends who pay big bribes.
In America, government-appointed lawyers are the means by which hundreds of thousands of poor people are railroaded into prison. It is the job of the victim's lawyer to "sell the deal" that the judge has decided will happen. This is Star Chamber justice.
A 1996 San Diego Superior Court corruption case in which three judges and a lawyer were convicted of taking bribes or influence peddling. Since neither county nor state would prosecute, federal prosecutors had to do the job under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) statute. Former San Diego Judge Michael Greer admitted taking $75,000 in bribes in exchange for having given a lawyer preferential treatment. Greer was placed on suspension after pleading guilty. Judges G. Dennis Adams, James A. Malkus and attorney Patrick R. Frega were convicted under the RICO statute. But in June of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned racketeering charges against Adams and Malkus, claiming the jury had been given inaccurate instructions. All of these men have remained free since 1996 as they appeal their cases. Please write about Dr. Leslie Sachs /He stands for truth and justice / http://www.dr-les-sachs.be/
23.
Daydreamer
Philadelphia
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
The worst thing any society can do is falsely prosecute someone and send them to jail, that is, unless, the defendant is also put to death. Where there is power, there is corruption. Always. The only question is to what degree.
24.
Florida
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
A very well told story about Juan Rivera. Congrats to those journalists that made this public. Journalism at its best.

As for the dirt bag prosecutor, he should be made to read the court's decision in US v. Berger, which reminds and admonishes US prosecutors that the first goal of any criminal proceeding is that justice be sought, and justice be done.

Reminded me of the prosecutor Nifong.
25.
Memamoto
Berlin
November 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
All these people that take late night confessions for granted, should ask themselves if they could withstand an extended time of sleep deprevation and constant mental attacks! Well, I know at one point I would do anything to be able to sleep. And I would want to believe the cops that the next day the whole "misunderstanding" can be clarified.

As a rape and murder victim I would not like to be described as having been sexually active with "innocent co-ejaculators" just before the real crime.

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/magazine/dna-evidence-lake-county.html PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;