Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

innocenceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 149 posts

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#121

Post by curryst »

ALittleLight wrote: post #115
fortran77 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect at least half the people exonerated by the Innocence Project are in fact guilty. However, I think that sloppy police work should never be rewarded with a guilty verdict, even if it's likely the defendant is guilty.

I disagree with this. The police aren't made any better off by getting a guilty verdict. They take their salaries home either way. As it should be. Society benefits when the guilty are in prison and suffers when they go free. If a person is guilty and the police made a mistake, we should correct the mistake the police made, including by firing people responsible or pressing criminal charges if appropriate, but malpra…

> If a person is guilty and the police made a mistake, we should correct the mistake the police made, including by firing people responsible or pressing criminal charges if appropriate, but malpractice by the police should not exonerate a guilty person.

The purpose of that is to disincentivize malpractice. That's why we have the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine for improperly obtained evidence. There's no point in illegally breaking into someone's house to get evidence because that evidence is inadmissable.

The alternative solution is to allow the evidence and prosecute the people who gathered it illegally. The problem there is that there's a clear conflict of interest: they were gathering that evidence for the prosecutor. The same prosecutor who will try to convict them for gathering that evidence. That prosecutor is incentivized to let them walk so they can keep getting illegal evidence. The second issue is that it's not always clear whether it's actually legal to gather some evidence in a particular way. We either have to prosecute negligence the same as malice, which seems unfair, or we leave a gaping loophole where we have to prove malice. All you have to do to get away with is shrug and go "I had no idea that it was illegal for me to just walk into the house if the door was already unlocked, and no, no one can verify the door was unlocked before I got there".

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#122

Post by curryst »

octopoc wrote: post #3

> evidence that the prosecution improperly withheld from the defense regarding the reliability of informant testimony What are the consequences of this for the prosecution?

The best we could probably hope for is disbarment. These things don't usually end up in criminal convictions. I would imagine a perjury charge is possible, but it seems unlikely.

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#123

Post by [deleted] »

plank_time wrote: post #29
wilsynet wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know the so called taped evidence wasn’t manufactured? I’m not usually given to conspiracy theories, but we already have plenty of evidence that the prosecution lied repeatedly in this case.

I mean, how can we know that any evidence isn’t manufactured? Besides, the article definitely presents its side of the story, but the fact it left out a huge detail that the person admitted to committing the crime calls into question the article itself. What other things did it conveniently leave out?

[deleted]

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#124

Post by [deleted] »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #73
wilsynet wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know the so called taped evidence wasn’t manufactured? I’m not usually given to conspiracy theories, but we already have plenty of evidence that the prosecution lied repeatedly in this case.

>How do we know the so called taped evidence wasn’t manufactured? would a false tape made 21 years ago show signs of falsification detectable with modern technology? I don't know but I would expect yes.

[deleted]

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#125

Post by michaelcampbell »

codezero wrote: post #49
monoideism wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don’t punish those things too hard in the US unless the target is poor or brown. Absolutely, which is why Bernie Madoff died a free man.

I’m confused. Bernie Madoff died in prison. Can you clarify your comment? How is it relevant to this thread? His punishment, compared to the economic and personal impact of his crimes was very light in general terms. Try again.

> Try again.

This level of smugness is almost never the right response here.

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#126

Post by wilsynet »

plank_time wrote: post #29
wilsynet wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know the so called taped evidence wasn’t manufactured? I’m not usually given to conspiracy theories, but we already have plenty of evidence that the prosecution lied repeatedly in this case.

I mean, how can we know that any evidence isn’t manufactured? Besides, the article definitely presents its side of the story, but the fact it left out a huge detail that the person admitted to committing the crime calls into question the article itself. What other things did it conveniently leave out?

Did he admit to committing the crime? Or did he just say “uh huh”?

But to answer the question, well how do we know any evidence isn’t manufactured? You know, I agree with your sentiment here.

But I would also say that the prosecution here has been caught lying, red handed, multiple times. For this case and for the evidence presented here, it should be examined and reaxamined.

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#127

Post by jaclaz »

rytis wrote: post #99
stefan_ wrote: post #5

> Ms. Haddaway had demanded that the state dismiss unrelated drug charges against her grandson in exchange for her testimony against Mr. Smith and Mr. Faulkner. The recordings also show that the state refused to place that deal in writing to prevent Ms. Haddaway from being cross-examined on the issue. The state, in fact, dismissed the charges three days before Mr. Andrews’s trial was scheduled to begin. So they didn'…

For those not fluent in Latin (I had to look up) "quid pro quo" means "a favour or advantage granted in return for something".

JFYI, it is only the English/American that use quid pro quo in that sense, in Latin (like in many other languages) it has a different meaning, while do ut des has that meaning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

"The Latin phrase corresponding to the usage of quid pro quo in English is do ut des (Latin for "I give, so that you may give"). Other languages continue to use do ut des for this purpose, while quid pro quo (or its equivalent qui pro quo, as widely used in Italian, French and Spanish) still keeps its original meaning of something being unwillingly mistaken, or erroneously told or understood, instead of something else."

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#128

Post by throwaway_r9RF »

mikeyouse wrote: post #55
hervature wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, crossing the border is a crime. You should clarify you mean violent criminals.

Most "illegal immigrants" are here on visa overstays, which is decidedly non-criminal. So you should refrain from correcting people about things you yourself aren't fully versed in. Source for most: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecu... More context: https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/undocumented-immigra...

Undoubtedly some of the visa overstays entered with a good faith belief that their stay would be temporary, but my guess would be the vast majority planned to immigrate and lied at some point in the visa issuance or border control process. That would make them make them guilty of criminal improper entry.

The statutory language is in 8 USC § 1325[0] and consists in relevant part of:

"Any alien who... obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation... shall... be fined under title 18 or imprisoned... or both"

It's hard to prove and rarely prosecuted of course, but that doesn't change the fact that many of the overstays are guilty.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#129

Post by sjburt »

haram_masala wrote: post #63
kmeisthax wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't. What they do want is for immigrants to not fear deportation, so they want to make a stand that they'll fight immigration enforcement every step of the way. Hence why they'll get involved with these kinds of lawsuits. Even if ICE purely deported only people who committed crimes other than illegal entry or overstaying a visa; you'd still have plenty of immigrants afraid of all law enforcement. Yes, even the…

If someone is legally in the US, why would they fear having their life uprooted by having to show their papers?

There's no "papers" in the US. You're not required to have a birth certificate or a Social Security card or a drivers license or a passport. There's no list of who is and isn't a citizen.

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#130

Post by mikeyouse »

uzakov wrote: post #111
mikeyouse wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all well and good - but ICE doesn't just pursue border-crossers -- they regularly arrest and deport people here on Visa overstays.. Many of the people that OPs friend is complaining about receiving aid from San Francisco "activist lawyers" are from Asia, who obviously didn't enter the country illegally, hence, non-criminals.

> That's all well and good - but ICE doesn't just pursue border-crossers -- they regularly arrest and deport people here on Visa overstays.. Isn't visa overstay illegal? Is it not part of ICE job?

Visa overstay is a civil infraction, hence this whole debate - calling everyone who ICE deports “criminals” is factually wrong.

You’re not a criminal if you leave your car parked in a street cleaning zone, you committed a civil infraction.

Post reply on HN