How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man
theatlantic.com
How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man
#2So the wrongly accused man was physically in jail at the reported time of the murder, and yet the system moved forward to imprison him for nearly two decades...because of this:
> There was a lot at stake for the detectives, who said all eight defendants had confessed. Because all of them had implicated Daniel in the murders, if Daniel’s confession were to fall apart, the rest of the case would be in jeopardy.
I think this is a sobering anecdote to remember when wondering why a bureaucratic decision has been made despite flying in the face of pure logic and science.
Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man
#3So, when a prosecutor / detective blatantly ignores contradictory evidence and end up putting an innocent person in jail, why do we not treat that as a crime? There are a number of obvious cynical answers to this, but seriously, does anyone know of prosecutors / detectives that have been charged in cases like this?
Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man
#4So, when a prosecutor / detective blatantly ignores contradictory evidence and end up putting an innocent person in jail, why do we not treat that as a crime? There are a number of obvious cynical answers to this, but seriously, does anyone know of prosecutors / detectives that have been charged in cases like this?
It does happen, but its rare. You have to remember that the whole criminal justice system operates in the context of large numbers of guilty as fuck defendants who file endless appeals and petitions to get rock solid cases overturned. That's the rule, cases like Daniel's are the exception. So prosecutors and investigators have broad immunities, with high bars for overcoming them. Otherwise, they'd be constantly subject to litigation.
Remember, this reporter got hundreds of letters from convicts and followed up on this one. Remember also that in real life, the facts aren't laid out for you like a newspaper article.
Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man
#5Reminds me of the classic James Stewart film Call Northside 777 [1], about two Chicago men falsely imprisoned for a murder during Prohibition. The real-life case it was based on ([2]) hinged on a witness identification that occurred a day after the same witness had not recognized the suspect just after arrest; the police then recorded the suspect has having been arrested the second day and omitted the failure from the record.
Both men stayed in prison until a newspaper reporter discovered the case, just as in this article; in fact, one of the men was not released until several years after the movie was made.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_Northside_777
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majczek_and_Marcinkiewicz
Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man
#6So, when a prosecutor / detective blatantly ignores contradictory evidence and end up putting an innocent person in jail, why do we not treat that as a crime? There are a number of obvious cynical answers to this, but seriously, does anyone know of prosecutors / detectives that have been charged in cases like this?
It does happen, but its rare. You have to remember that the whole criminal justice system operates in the context of large numbers of guilty as fuck defendants who file endless appeals and petitions to get rock solid cases overturned. That's the rule, cases like Daniel's are the exception. So prosecutors and investigators have broad immunities, with high bars for overcoming them. Otherwise, they'd be constantly subje…
When a review of a case finds that the prosecution knowingly withheld evidence that actually proved the client could not have been there, the facts pretty much speak for themselves. This should have led directly to criminal charges.
Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man
#7I just listened to this last night: http://www.thestory.org/stories/2013-06/scott-hornoff
An innocent cop went to prison for 6 years until the murderer came forward with a confession. There was basically no evidence to put him away, but he was having an affair with the victim at the time, which made him suspect number one. The part that really upset me was that he was basically unemployable after he came out. He was awarded $600k in backpay when released, but $200k went to his lawyer and the rest to his ex-wife.
Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man
#8Reminds me of the classic James Stewart film Call Northside 777 [1], about two Chicago men falsely imprisoned for a murder during Prohibition. The real-life case it was based on ([2]) hinged on a witness identification that occurred a day after the same witness had not recognized the suspect just after arrest; the police then recorded the suspect has having been arrested the second day and omitted the failure from th…
And "Hurricane" Carter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_%22Hurricane%22_Carter
Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man
#9[deleted]
Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does happen, but its rare. You have to remember that the whole criminal justice system operates in the context of large numbers of guilty as fuck defendants who file endless appeals and petitions to get rock solid cases overturned. That's the rule, cases like Daniel's are the exception. So prosecutors and investigators have broad immunities, with high bars for overcoming them. Otherwise, they'd be constantly subje…
When a review of a case finds that the prosecution knowingly withheld evidence that actually proved the client could not have been there, the facts pretty much speak for themselves. This should have led directly to criminal charges.
You're focusing on one case instead of looking at the whole thing as a system. What's the standard of proof for establishing that it's knowing and not inadvertent? Who "finds" that the prosecution knowingly withheld evidence? You can't have official legal "findings" until you institute a law suit, so what's the bar for instituting a law suit and how do you set that bar high enough to keep prosecutors from being inundated with lawsuits by every criminal they put in jail?
It's a cost-benefit analysis. What's the benefit of reducing the error rate of the system versus how much does it cost to achieve that reduction?