Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

The Prosecution cannot tamper with the evidence. They cannot withhold evidence that was given to the police, that is highly illegal and easily checkable.

Easily checkable how? 

Well you see when evidence is found the police tend to catelog it extensively. Thus if the prosecution tampers with evidence the police can go "Ohh look, this confession seems to be in shreds for some reason". Thus easily checkable.

Where is this evidence the prosecution has exclusive privey of and how was it swept under the carpet for years until AFTER the execution.

Exactly what I was saying the whole time. Evidence was withheld, and you need to stop saying that something like this wasn't possible. Because it happened

Ok take me through the steps because usually it is

Police go onto crime scene
Police take names and get confessions
police hand this information to the defense and prosecution.

Where in this system is the prosecution getting their hands on it and have the ability to alter the evidence?

I don't know who is responsible for presenting the charges and evidence in court in the US, but please don't argue that DeLuna could have done it

There was enough evidence that he was not ONLY successfully charged, got through pretrial, sentenced to death, and failed to appeal twice while all this information the article was talking about was known.

What voodoo was involved here that prevented it? You never say how it works you just say "it had to have happened".

This is honestly stepping into "Super Lawyer" territory.

[Theoboldi]

I don't know who is responsible for presenting the charges and evidence in court in the US, but please don't argue that DeLuna could have done it

There was enough evidence that he was not ONLY successfully charged, got through pretrial, sentenced to death, and failed to appeal twice while all this information the article was talking about was known.

What voodoo was involved here that prevented it? You never say how it works you just say "it had to have happened".

They denied that the actual murderer actually existed. They dismissed the very existance of another possible culprit. I don't think you realise just how much of a complete Fuck Up that was. And later they even ignored the real murderers confession! Explain to me how this is not withholding evidence? Clearly they must have had a reason for this, otherwise they could have shown this evidence in court and still get DeLuna sentenced to death.

Also, again, I don't know how it works in the US, but in my country the prosecution has a degree of controle over the investigations, and they are the ones who present the charges in court, since they represent the state.

[mainiac]

So the system isn't corrupt because it only kills guilty people.  We know they are guilty because they are found guilty in a court of law.  Am I getting all that?

And the prosecution can't bury evidence... because they would get in trouble when people find out they are burying evidence?

[Neonivek]

They denied that the actual murderer actually existed. They dismissed the very existance of another possible culprit. I don't think you realise just how much of a complete Fuck Up that was. And later they even ignored the real murderers confession! Explain to me how this is not withholding evidence

Because the defense themselves can go "Well if your not using evidence then we will"

Also, again, I don't know how it works in the US, but in my country the prosecution has a degree of controle over the investigations, and they are the ones who present the charges in court, since they represent the state

Ohh now this makes sense. I thought you were getting your info from those awful law shows.

In the USA the prosecution has no part in the investigation. They have little-no sway over it.

So the system isn't corrupt because it only kills guilty people.  We know they are guilty because they are found guilty in a court of law.  Am I getting all that?

And the prosecution can't bury evidence... because they would get in trouble when people find out they are burying evidence?

First, no I am not saying that. I am saying that this is a very simplistic view of how the case went. Cases where someone who was truely innocent was sentenced to jail tend to be based on very damning circumstantial evidence and/or flawed investigations/forensics. Neither was the case here. Obviously there was more evidence against him then you are giving credit.

Second, the prosecution would be found out instantly if they tried to bury evidence. All the defense would have to do is take a walk to the police station say "hey do you have any evidence I should look at" and they will say "Yeah we are letting the prosecution look at it" and when the prosecution buries it... the defense can go "Mistrial" better yet... burying evidence is great grounds for a appeal.

They could only successfully bury evidence ONLY they got their hands on. If the police as much as touched it then no. Plus the article itself knows this "evidence" so someone other then the prosecution knew.

[mainiac]

It would be wonderful if the system actually worked the way you say it works Neonivek.  The problem is, the thing that we are so enraged about is that it doesn't actually work that way.  Read of the story of Cameron Todd Williams that the OP posted.  Look at the skewed demographics on who we put to death in this country.  Look at the countless cases of exonorations when a high powered lawyer took over the appeal and realize what that applies when a high powered lawyer wasn't available to take on the appeal.  The system is not working the way it's supposed to work.  Not in hypothetical, in countless real world examples.

[Neonivek]

I am aware of how the system can break down Mainiac, however at no point in this trial has the prosecution even entered the area of villain. Except by some weird conjecture that they had power over police evidence and had the power to ignore pretrial.

Which I am outright refusing happened. I refuse that the prosecution was able to outright circumvent the judicial system and at no point has anyone given a realistic way for them to have done so.

It is always this weird "They had the ability to not use the evidence" claim I keep hearing. I mean I've heard of cases where the police think a case is so open and shut they don't do sufficient investigation. The police not doing a good job in the investigation makes sense.

The prosecution gaining the ability to steal evidence and throw it out to such a successful extent that even the defense cannot touch it... is weird.

"Not in hypothetical, in countless real world examples"

Yes but learn how it works. There are reasons why those things happen. There is a reason why high-powered lawyers often work and reasons why high-powered lawyers are often overestimated.

There are underhanded tactics the prosecution could have done. This is not one they can do.

[Theoboldi]

Well, if only the prosecution decides to actually do any work on the case, then I'd say they would also only present evidence they found useful for them. I think we can all agree that the defense did not care in the least about this case, since they blindly accepted what the prosecution stated about Hernandez not existing.
I don't know if the defence was incompetend, corrupt, or both, but the atourney DeLuna got was at least one of these two, which allowed the prosecution to claim whatever they wanted.

So yeah, neither the police, nor the defence did actually do anything to help DeLuna, so the prosecution just had all the power in this case. He didn't stand a chance because no one cared about him.

[Neonivek]

I think we can all agree that the defense did not care in the least about this case

YES! that is possible. There have been many cases where the defense put up a horrible defense and got the person sent to jail. It is one of the major issues with the system because it means that the theory of "Burden of proof" is false (the claim that a defense lawyer could win a case without saying anything is false. Inspite it actually being one of the major tenants of the law).

There was a case not too far back about someone who successfully appealed a sentence he already completed on the grounds that his own defense lawyer didn't defend him.

That is all I am saying. The prosecution is getting ragged on for being competent in a case where both the police and defense were not. Ok that and I think the article is leaving out information.

[ChairmanPoo]

"Th  prosecution did no wrong, for the evidence was clearly irrefutable, because he was convicted because of it" is kind of a circular argument

[Neonivek]

"Th  prosecution did no wrong, for the evidence was clearly irrefutable, because he was convicted because of it" is kind of a circular argument

The prosecution did no wrong because they only worked with the evidence they were given by the police.

The prosecution obviously didn't start a case based off of nothing because they went to pretrail.

It is a A to B and C to D arguement. Not A to B to A

[Theoboldi]

The problem of course being, that the prosecution blatantly abused the weakness of the defence to send someone quickly into prison, which I quite frankly find disgusting. If the system is based on two opposing sites, then both sites should be equally competent, or otherwise things like this case happen.

[Neonivek]

The problem of course being, that the prosecution blatantly abused the weakness of the defence to send someone quickly into prison, which I quite frankly find disgusting. If the system is based on two opposing sites, then both sites should be equally competent, or otherwise things like this case happen.

It is the USA system. They are actually supposed to do that. The same applies to the Canadian and British system.

Though mind you I guess it depends if you are, once again, blamming the prosecution for actually following the law.

[Theoboldi]

I kinda am, since I don't think the US system works. The budget attorneys people get are largely incompetent, leading to the prosecution almost always having more power. Which is horrible for a system with two opposing sites.

[Neonivek]

I kinda am, since I don't think the US system works. The budget atourneys people get are largely incompetent, leading to the prosecution almost always having more power. Which is horrible for a system with two opposing sites.

Yeah budget lawyers and court appointed ones tend to be either incompetent or overworked or uncaring.

[Pnx]

I kinda am, since I don't think the US system works. The budget atourneys people get are largely incompetent, leading to the prosecution almost always having more power. Which is horrible for a system with two opposing sites.

Yeah budget lawyers and court appointed ones tend to be either incompetent or overworked or uncaring.

Not to mention underpaid, you never want someone in that kind of position to be underpaid, it makes it hard to keep quality personnel, makes it so they're more open to corruption, and leads to the aforementioned problems.