Guilty Until Proven Innocent! Justice blowin' in the wind
Excerpts from the article:
-----------------------------------------------
THE CSI EFFECTTHE CSI EFFECT: A relatively new problem with justice in America has recently merged. Most of what the public knows about the legal system comes from media reporting and the pseudo-documentaries that purport to depict law enforcement realistically. Known collectively as the “CSI Effect,” the phenomenon affects not only trials but also the public’s perception of what happens in criminal investigations. Simply put, “It just ain’t so.” The altruism we see in Cold Case Files; the intense investigation we see on CSI, SVU; the reluctance of prosecutors and judges to pervert the legal system we see in “Law and Order” is “creative license” taken by teleplay writers and it is what should happen, but rarely does.
Legal professionals are concerned at the heavy influence of these semi-fictional dramatic presentations on the outcome of trials where “CSI expert” juries base their verdicts on their own “forensic evaluations” of the evidence. In effect, jurors who rely on the “expertise” acquired by viewing TV-crime programs are overruling the expert forensic witnesses. Courts, though they should, rarely instruct juries to disregard their “TV crime busting experience” when reaching a verdict.
Below are highlights of some of other, much more serious, flaws in the system that Justice On Trial, using contributions and grants, hopes to offer suggestions, and lobby for legislation, to improve.
1. THE IRRELEVANCE OF INNOCENCE: The “presumption of guilt,” not innocence,tracks defendants throughout the system. Imagine law enforcement arresting those they “presumed innocent.” In virtually all arrests, law enforcement makes a “prophecy of guilt,” early on, then ‘develops” appropriate evidence to prosecute and convict. (See the 2002 feature film, with Al Pacino, Hillary Swank, Robin Williams, “Insomnia” for a realistic depiction of this law enforcement mindset with truly disastrous results. Also read Pulitzer Prize winner Edward Humes’ “Mean Justice” to see how rampant, and dangerous, this can be in a community where it is nurtured, unchecked.)..................
2. ARREST WITHOUT EVIDENCE: Officials can and do arrest on no, or flawed, even fabricated, evidence. Affidavits are sworn, under penalty of perjury, so judges, relying upon the honesty of law enforcement and prosecutors, approve such documents without corroboration. Judges are unable to verify evidence in a “sworn officer’s” affidavit. There are evidentiary requirements for arrest, search and seizure and preliminary hearings. However, they are based upon the premise that officers of the law and courts will rise to these standards of law, voluntarily, accurately and truthfully. Some do not.
Frequently, in cases where there is little or no evidence, the “instincts and experience” of law enforcement point them to a suspect early in the investigation. To validate these de facto “declarations of guilt,” officers and/or prosecutors “fudge” evidence to arrest and prosecute so conviction becomes, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy of guilt. Officials “amplify” weak evidence; falsify forensics that would be difficult for the defense to verify; manipulate witness testimony; avoid investigation of other suspects, and withhold exculpatory evidence to strengthen the case and validate that prophecy of guilt....................................
3. YEARS OF INCARCERATION WITH NO TRIAL: Routinely, defendants, many who present no danger or the very remote possibility of flight, are held without bail or unaffordable bail, for years. “Speedy trial” is another fallacy of the American Judicial system. The more serious the crime alleged, the longer it will take the defense to prepare for trial.........................................
4. MYTH OF INCREASED CONVICTION/DECREASED CRIME RATE: Statistics, like holograms, look a little different from every angle. About 85% of “convictions” in the U.S. are not really convictions at all. Ostensibly, to save the courts’ time and money, in collaboration with law enforcement, prosecutors “over-charge” defendants. That is, in the majority of criminal cases, the defendant is charged with more serious crimes than there is evidence to support. Law enforcement then persuades the defendant:A. That sufficient evidence does exist, when most often it does not; that he will be charged and almost certainly convicted with a long sentence.
B. If he goes to trial it could take years (it will) and, should he lose and appeal, he could spend many years in jail (he would) and still be sentenced at the highest end of the sentencing standard, without “time served” being counted because he was uncooperative by not accepting the plea bargain.....................
5. ESTIMATES OF INNOCENTS IN JAIL RUN TO 200,000 OR MORE: If that were true, what an outrage! But, it is. You may have heard that Barry Scheck, nationally known trial attorney, has headed up a similar non-profit organization, Innocence Project for several years. This group has been responsible for 158 cases overturned, some from death row, primarily based on DNA evidence. (Read “Actual Innocence” by Barry Scheck, for more information and some astonishing statistics on numbers of innocent inmates in U.S. jails). The U.S. has the largest inmate population of any country in the world, over 2 million.
I found the above article as I was researching to write a similar piece regarding Cam Brown. I simply could not find the words to state it better. Justiceontrial.org is an excellent site and is currently working on a television series by the same name. All of us who previously had strong confidence in our justice system before Cam's case, will be anxiously looking forward to that program. We are committed to the principle of being innocent until proven guilty and understand that we can not have a sound justice system in America unless we do everything in our power to preserve truth, honesty and integrity in justice. But lets apply the conclusions of the article to Cam's case:
1. The Relevance of Innocence: There is no question that Cam's case was approached with the assumption of his guilt being the primary motivation and catalyst. As the prosecutor said in an interview, he simply felt certain Cam was guilty. As the investigators said, it was because of their experience that they were able to ferret out statements Cam had made that caused them to conclude early on that he was a guilty man. From there it was a matter of finding what they needed to prove it. They spend the next couple of years trying to "make" their case, but found nothing to substantiate their suspicions. They then enlisted the assistance of DDA Craig Hum who began to creatively weave together the "facts" in a way that would demonstrate guilt to a grand jury and secure an indictment. In the process, facts were manipulated in order to fit, and other facts were created out of thin air. When it didn't hold up in the trial court, prosecutor Hum merely shifted gears and began to argue an alternative theory, and in case the jury didn't buy either, he threw in an admonition to the jury that they "MUST" find Cam Brown guilty, it's the law! Presumption of innocence is, in reality, a farce. It's what we strive for but can not obtain as long as those whom we trust to serve our best interests work from a presumption of guilt, and have all of the resources they need to create the appearance of guilt.
2. Arrest without Evidence: The prosecution twisted the facts to make it appear there was probable cause to arrest Cam Brown. One of the things they used were so-called footprints. The truth about those so-called footprints is that their own crime analyst testified in trial for the defense that they were not footprints. Then, when it was time to give the molds of supposed footprints to the defense for testing and review, they were lost. From those supposed footprints they hired an expert who was willing to support their conclusion that Cam Brown threw his daughter over a cliff. They had other experts who said it was impossible to reach that conclusion, but that did not deter them and those experts were not hired. They then fudged the "evidence" enough to not only secure an arrest and indictment, but to ensure Cam would not be let out on bail. This tactic is often used to prevent an accused the ability to aid in his own defense, but more importantly to put pressure on them to make a deal or to confess to a crime.
3. Years of Incarceration with no trial: This tactic was also utilized in Cam's case. The longer he is incarcerated, the more likely it is that he will fall prey and admit to something or strike a deal. Incarcerated for nearly five years, when all else failed, pressure was put on Cam by bringing charges against him for possession of a weapon. $50,000 bail was placed on him for that charge, even though there is no evidence against him. But let me explain what he was accused of.
Cam was taken for a shower. When he returned he noticed a hard-covered book in his cell. Hard-covered books are not allowed in the jail. If they are discovered in the mail they are returned to sender and are never forwarded to an inmate. All other books are stamped to show when they were received and where they are going. Also, the cells are checked regularly for contraband, and Cam's cell was checked on a daily basis. The book was not in his cell when he was taken out for his shower, but it suddenly appeared when he returned. He immediately saw it and asked the deputy to take it away. It was not his. The deputy took the book and right away discovered there was a razor blade in the spine of the book. As a consequence, Cam was charged with having a weapon.
Because of complaints Cam had previously made regarding abuse in jail, he was on a tier which video-taped everything. The video tape was subpoenaed by the defense and would show how the book got into Cam's cell, but when the defense failed to receive the tape and brought it to the attention of the judge, it was revealed that the tape had been destroyed. The book was also intentionally destroyed. While it is said that the razor blade is being held in evidence, no finger prints were ever taken from it prior to charging Cam or prior to bringing the case to trial. This case is certainly being brought as a means of intimidation. The fact that it is costing Cam additional money to defend is another bonus for the prosecution, as well as the fact it can be used by the media to make Cam look bad. Tactics. It's all about gaining the advantage and putting pressure on the accused.
I realize that there are some who believe it was as simple as invoking Cam's right to a speedy trial, but in reality it's never that simple. This is especially true when funds are limited and negotiations are on going to provide the defendant with expert witnesses. Certainly you can invoke speedy trial rights, but then there is no assurance that you will be able to support your defense with the necessary experts. Believe me, it's not as easy as some would like you to believe unless you are independently wealthy. This is the reason why the percentage of those who give up and take a deal is so high - somewhere in the neighborhood of 80%. Cam has been fighting for the opportunity to prove his innocence.
4. Myth of Increased Conviction/Decreased Crime Rate: Of course this myth serves a dual purpose. It helps the District Attorney and the Sheriff in their re-election campaigns, and it also helps the Deputy District Attorney in his quest for recognition. But there is another reason to overcharge people such as Cam. It's because being locked up often puts the accused in a position of being falsely testified against by jail house snitches, but also because of the pressure to confess -- even if those kind of confessions are known to be due to pressure and not because they are true. Even though it is likely that some of these people will actually be acquitted in trial, many of them have no resources to fight the system and depend on the already over-stressed Public Defender's Office. They know that they are at a grave disadvantage and might as well bend to the pressure and just admit to something in a plea deal. The plea goes down on the charts as a conviction -- another supposed bad guy off the streets. It's a cruel and nasty game, but it has proven to be a very effective one until people like Barry Scheck came along and began getting enough evidence to effect the release of some of the falsely convicted, but also began to gather enough data to show how innocent men were convinced to give false confessions. The data also showed patterns of tactics used to ensure the conviction of innocent men and women. We began to have enough data to take the complaints of abuse and lies very seriously.
Even a defense attorney will look to deal out a case. Fighting it costs far more money than most people have, and public assistance is rarely enough to even begin to cover the cost of a good defense. In Cam's case, experts for the defense were severely limited in what they would be paid (those experts paid by the public funds), and after the trial the judge further cut their payment back to ensure (we believe) that they would never come back for a second trial. It's all about games. It's all about strategy. It works far too often.
Further along in the above article it says, "Those believing that their innocence will lead to acquittal are naive and find, too late, of the irrelevance of innocence in today's American system of justice."
Cam believed, after Lauren's accident, that the ambitious investigators would investigate and find out they were wrong and eventually leave him alone. He was not afraid of the investigation because he knew he had done nothing wrong. He naively had confidence in the system to protect him.
You know, you often see people who immediately call for an attorney when it seems suspicion is befalling them. You also see that when someone does that it is used against them by the investigators. Why would anyone call for an attorney if they are, indeed, innocent? In reality it's like anything else that will happen to you if the long arm of the law decides you are guilty of something; you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you cry, you are intentionally over-reacting to hide your guilt, therefore providing probable cause. If you don't cry, you are not reacting in the way you should be reacting and therefore you are providing probable cause. The police know very well that there is no set way to respond to a terrible and tragic event, yet they will use your response (regardless of what it was) to provide foundation of your suspected guilt.
The next time you hear of someone protesting their innocence -- even on their way into a gas chamber -- don't assume they are guilty just because they made it that far into the system. Chances are just as likely that they never committed the crime they were accused, tried and convicted of. Chances are real good.
Links to this post:
Create a Link