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

How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

#21

Post by [deleted] »

bcoates wrote: post #15
rayiner wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inund…

Exactly, sending a handful of unlucky prosecutors to jail for a few decades pour encourager les autres would clearly be worth it on the whole to protect the integrity of the system.

[deleted]

Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

#22

Post by 6d0debc071 »

rayiner wrote: post #16
bcoates wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, sending a handful of unlucky prosecutors to jail for a few decades pour encourager les autres would clearly be worth it on the whole to protect the integrity of the system.

If that was the cost it would be peachy. What we're talking, instead, is about no prosecutor ever being able to do their job because they'd be constantly flooded by litigation claiming that this or the other thing amounted to prosecutorial misconduct.

Could you just make it contingent on the person who was imprisoned making a successful appeal - which I'd imagine would be their initial priority anyway? You get off for something that you were put away for, then you can sue for misconduct....

Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

#23

Post by md224 »

danso wrote: post #2

So 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…

Seriously.

> A check showed that, in fact, Daniel had been arrested for fighting in a park that night at about 6:45 p.m., and jail records showed he was released about 10 p.m. and the murders occurred at 8:43 p.m.

That should've been the end of it. The. End. How did NO ONE involved in the mechanics of this case (the judge, lawyers, etc.) note this fact and immediately release him? Were they relying on the fallibility of police records? Did they say "oh, well, it says he was in jail but maybe the clock was off"? Is there a counter-fact being withheld here?

I just seriously don't understand how something this clear-cut could've escaped everyone's attention. It hurts my brain.

Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

#24

Post by rayiner »

yew wrote: post #20
rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So some journalist writing an article should constitute legal findings that can trigger a lawsuit?

. . . I don't recall mentioning journalists? I also wasn't aware that journalists could unilaterally free convicted felons. I think the state's own findings are quite sufficient. The trick is to incentivize their use without unduly obstructing other operations of equal importance.

A state engaging in an official process of finding the facts is called litigation. What should be sufficient showing to trigger this litigation against a prosecutor? In this case, it was a journalist writing an article. So you're basically saying prosecutors should be subject to litigation based on articles by journalist.

Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

#25

Post by dredmorbius »

kmfrk wrote: post #12
[deleted] wrote: post #9

[deleted]

Another classic is Errol Morris's The Thin Blue line, which pioneered the reconstruction technique seen in many documentaries and non-fiction crime shows that followed.

Anyone know the content of the deleted comment?

Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

#26

Post by yew »

rayiner wrote: post #24
yew wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

. . . I don't recall mentioning journalists? I also wasn't aware that journalists could unilaterally free convicted felons. I think the state's own findings are quite sufficient. The trick is to incentivize their use without unduly obstructing other operations of equal importance.

A state engaging in an official process of finding the facts is called litigation. What should be sufficient showing to trigger this litigation against a prosecutor? In this case, it was a journalist writing an article. So you're basically saying prosecutors should be subject to litigation based on articles by journalist.

I'm well aware of the mechanics, thank you.

The state has already satisfied itself sufficiently to reverse a murder conviction. If the investigation that led to that course of action was causally descended from an article written by a journalist - what of it?

If you believe that the actions taken by the state up to this point were unwarranted, say so explicitly. Otherwise, please recognize that I am not talking about journalists here.

Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

#27

Post by aimhb »

lifeformed wrote: post #14
jere wrote: post #7

I 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…

I don't understand why people have to pay lawyers if they are found not guilty. At any time, I could be accused of anything at all, and regardless of being innocent, I lose boatloads of money from defending myself?

Why would your lawyer even try to prove you innocent if it meant not getting a paycheck?

Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

#28

Post by kmfrk »

dredmorbius wrote: post #25
kmfrk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another classic is Errol Morris's The Thin Blue line, which pioneered the reconstruction technique seen in many documentaries and non-fiction crime shows that followed.

Anyone know the content of the deleted comment?

S/he was recommending Ken Burns's Central Park Five documentary that also reinvited scrutiny: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2380247/.

Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

#29

Post by lifeformed »

aimhb wrote: post #27
lifeformed wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people have to pay lawyers if they are found not guilty. At any time, I could be accused of anything at all, and regardless of being innocent, I lose boatloads of money from defending myself?

Why would your lawyer even try to prove you innocent if it meant not getting a paycheck?

I mean, have someone else pay for it. The accuser or the government.

Re: How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

#30

Post by belorn »

aimhb wrote: post #27
lifeformed wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people have to pay lawyers if they are found not guilty. At any time, I could be accused of anything at all, and regardless of being innocent, I lose boatloads of money from defending myself?

Why would your lawyer even try to prove you innocent if it meant not getting a paycheck?

Many countries provide the lawyer costs of the successful party, and only force the loosing side to pay. In civil suits, this mean that the loosing party pays the winning sides lawyers.

Of course, lawyers can only demand "reasonable" pay through that system. That means above average pay, but not 1000x.

Post reply on HN