$3.5M Compensation For Wrongful Conviction in Queens

By TChris, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 07:18:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

New York City has agreed to pay $3.5 million to Shih-Wei Su. That will make his life better, but it won't give him back 12 years of lost freedom.

Shih-Wei Su, was convicted by a jury in 1992 after Queens prosecutors knowingly presented false testimony from the star witness, according to a ruling in 2003 by the United States Court of Appeals, which overturned Mr. Su’s conviction and condemned the Queens district attorney’s office. ...
“The settlement doesn’t buy back the time I lost and doesn’t do real justice, but the amount shows the public something is very wrong here,” said Mr. Su, now 35 and a financial consultant in Manhattan. “I did 12 years on a wrongful conviction, and no one was punished for it.”

Misconduct by police and prosecutors that leads to wrongful convictions is rarely punished. [more ...]

Joel B. Rudin, Mr. Su’s lawyer, said that his research showed that about 80 Queens convictions over a 15-year period ending in 2003 had been reversed because of prosecutorial wrongdoing, but that those prosecutors had never been disciplined.

The taxpayers who are funding the $3.5 million settlement should ask whether more effective oversight of prosecutors might prevent more settlements like this one -- and might avoid devastating the lives of people like Su.

< World Medical Assoc. Expands Ban on Physician Assisted Executions | Philadelphia Inquirer Endorses Obama, Blasts McCain's Choice of Palin >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

$3.5M Compensation For Wrongful Conviction in Queens | 6 comments (6 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Knowingly presented false testimony? Not a crime? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by jerry on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 07:31:08 PM EST

Isn't it a crime to falsely testify?
Isn't it a crime to knowingly present that testimony?

And if not a crime, a firing offense for a prosecutor, or disbarment?

Sheesh.

well, um..........................no! (none / 0) (#2)
by cpinva on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 07:42:53 PM EST

because you see, if those guilty of these acts were actually punished, they would never be able to get anyone to fill those positions.

you know, like the police. all those jobs would be empty, or so they would have you believe.

oddly enough, were i found to be lying in my job, i'd be fired and prosecuted. it rarely happens at my level (i deal with a higher class of scum; white collar and wealthy), but when it does, the whole world knows about it, and you just don't want to be that person.

clearly, i am in the wrong profession.

: Oh, yes. (none / 0) (#6)
by JamesTX on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:10:15 AM EST

I know, I know. Playing fair would be so tough on them that nobody would do it, and then we would be left all alone with the criminals...the Thin Blue Line would be broken. That is why they essentially quit and went on protest break in the 60s and 70s in defiance of the public's mandate that they obey the law. You see, the Constitution is actually a self-contradicting document, and us lesser folk don't understand that. In order to enforce the law, you have to break it.
Something tells me we would still have plenty of people willing to take career jobs that pay enough to live on (I know, I know, it isn't enough), plus have that job security and benefits that come with government jobs.

Know the name of the prosecutor? (none / 0) (#3)
by Lil on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 09:08:02 PM EST

: Linda Rosero, who (none / 0) (#4)
by JamesTX on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:07:15 AM EST

is no longer with the prosecutor's office.

These awards (none / 0) (#5)
by JamesTX on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:43:08 AM EST

are nice for the few people who manage to exonerate themselves, but for the thousands like Shih-Wei Su who are not so lucky, the underlying problem will require a lot more. The changes needed are something I don't see coming soon, though. The public thinks prosecutorial and judicial misconduct is cute and fashionable 'if the guy is really guilty', and they simply have no answer for the question of how we know 'the guy is really guilty' if there is nothing to stop misconduct. Their thought mechanisms have been pruned. This is a large scale attitude problem, and there are about 30 years of lies to be dismantled before you can even begin to reason with people about this problem.

Scott Henson at Grits for Breakfast gets it right:

"And there's the rub: The system is broken - its checks and balances frequently don't work. There are simply no meaningful oversight mechanisms to prevent or punish misconduct by state actors. Will those officers face discipline or prosecution for violating these guys' civil rights? No. Will the judge be held accountable by the Commission no Judicial Conduct? Hell no. For that matter, why didn't the Court of Appeals or the CCA step in to fix this obvious error before the federal courts ever saw this case?"