Off the wall legal hypothetical...

[DrFaroohk]

Just cuz I've always been wondering...

Sometimes there's valid evidence for a crime that can't be used in court for whatever reason. Like no search warrant.

Ok, I don't know that for a fact. I watch a lot of TV. I assume it's partially true at least. If you search someone's home with no warrant and no probable cause and find a dead body, tough shit right? Can't enter that dead body in as evidence in court?

Well I was wondering if its ever happened the other way around. Oh look, here's indisputable proof that you didn't do it...but it's not allowed in court because of a technicality. That ever happen?

[telecom_goddess]

I don't think that would apply to an actual crime scene, which a body in place would automatically create.

I'm no cop or lawyer though.

[Andara Bledin]

Because of the way the burden of proof works and the protections of our rights (such as privacy), this type of restriction is almost entirely on the side of the prosecution. The only time when it would affect the defense is when the defense's proof of innocence is the guilt of another party. However, I could definitely see the evidence being allowed for the defense in that case, and then disallowed in the prosecution of the party then standing accused, as that would be a separate trial, and again, the prosecution is held to stricter limitations as regards legal procurement of evidence.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

Well I was wondering if its ever happened the other way around. Oh look, here's indisputable proof that you didn't do it...but it's not allowed in court because of a technicality. That ever happen?

It happens all the time in appeals court-heck texas executed a FACTUALLY INNOCENT MAN because of this.

[Andara Bledin]

It happens all the time in appeals court-heck texas executed a FACTUALLY INNOCENT MAN because of this.

There is a notable difference between the board of appeals ignoring the exceedingly late introduction of additional evidence and the same evidence being disallowed during a trial.

In fact, what that article points to is an egregious and appalling failure of the appeals process to actually be anything more than just lip service, and the ongoing and continuing under-representation of all those who find themselves at the mercy of public defense.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

Damn that engrossing 17 page story!!!!

Reminds me of a book I read about some possibly innocent guy on death row...i can't remember all of it but basically everyone knows he's innocent, but since his trial was constitutionally adequate they execute him anyway, as to reverse it would be more damaging to the legal system. Or something like that.

[HYHYBT]

So... what the hell kind of governor doesn't issue a pardon to someone evidence proves innocent, if there is no avenue for regular appeal?

[Millahtyme1983]

I wish I could remember the details unfortunately it's been too long but I had a criminal procedure professor tell us about a case he had consulted on when just that thing happened. I do remember the defense raised a shitstorm over it because the law used to dismiss the evidence was meant to protect a defendant from evidence against him, he was found not guilty anyways so appealing the decision was not necessary and not possible.

[Andara Bledin]

So... what the hell kind of governor doesn't issue a pardon to someone evidence proves innocent, if there is no avenue for regular appeal?

According to the article on Wikipedia, the same sort of governor that would use his power to alter the makeup of a scientific commission in order to stall it from possibly making the statement that the failsafes in place against putting innocent people to death were not only inadequate, but had already failed at least one man, incontrovertibly.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission was scheduled to discuss the report by Dr. Beyler at a meeting on October 2, 2009, but two days before the meeting Texas Governor Rick Perry replaced the chair of the commission and two other members. The new chair canceled the meeting—sparking accusations that Perry was interfering with the investigation[36] and using it for his own political advantage.[37]

36 - Article at CNN
37 - Article that includes video of an Anderson Cooper clip

The CNN article quotes at least two of the replaced members as having requested that they remain on the commission, with one stating "that it would be disruptive to make the new appointments right now," and "The commission was at a crucial point in the investigation."

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

...which still leaves me at a complete loss as to why he'd do such a thing. How does he gain anything by making sure that the innocent are put to death?

[Andara Bledin]

...which still leaves me at a complete loss as to why he'd do such a thing. How does he gain anything by making sure that the innocent are put to death?

He doesn't. He didn't and likely still doesn't care that Willingham may have been innocent. I doubt he ever even cracked the cover on the report until it was far too late, and now it's all just spin control so he can get himself re-elected for another term.

This is actually fairly typical of the treatment the poor have in our legal system. Having a public defender is, sometimes, worse than representing yourself. At least when you represent yourself you don't have to worry that your defense thinks you're actually guilty or, as my brother once experienced, having a P.D. that arrives late to your hearing and doesn't even know your name or the charges you're in for.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

So... what the hell kind of governor doesn't issue a pardon to someone evidence proves innocent, if there is no avenue for regular appeal?

here's one-oh and he got elected to a higher office. Refused to pardon because of "eyewitness Id"(we all know how reliable that is-especially when the victim said her attacker was white and the convicted man was black), here's a few of them-there was a third that was on dateline years ago, but I can't find that one-it was a man that was convicted of a rape he didn't commit, had evidence he wasn't even in the state at time, they found, tried and convicted the actual rapist, but the governor refused to release the innocent man because "he was convicted by a jury of his peers, and releasing him would be bad for people's faith in the justice system"