home

A Freedom March For the Wrongfully Convicted

By TChris, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 09:51:19 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

On Saturday, June 27, consider participating in a Freedom March. The goal is to bring attention to wrongful convictions and to the possibility of executing the innocent. (Consider, for instance, the story of William Jackson “Jack” Marion, the unfortunate victim of "the first, last and only legal hanging in Beatrice," his punishment for murdering Jack Cameron, who turned up alive four years after the hanging.)

New York City and Pittsburgh are among the participating cities. March organizers hope that marchers will participate in every state capitol, making the Freedom March a nationwide event.

< Monday Night TV and Open Thread | An Excerpt From: The Fence >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Freedom March For the Wrongfully Convicted | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    When I was a law clerk (none / 0) (#1)
    by eric on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 10:42:26 PM EST
    for a district court judge, I saw a wrongful conviction.  It was a charge of armed robbery.  The evidence was pretty convincing, but I had my doubts.   It was all circumstancial evididence:  crumpled money in the kids's pocket, running from the police, etc.  The verdict was guilty.  When his "accomplice" was tried, it was established that these kids did not do the crime.  Charges were dropped and the convicted kid had his conviction vacated.

    There are so many problems with the criminal justice system, and I know I always take flak for this, but I blame the jury.   They did not have a good sense of reasonable doubt.  They were not skeptical enough of the evidence.  They just wanted to convict and go home.  I think that there should be increased pressure on the jury to get it right.  Get it wrong, then the jury should go to jail.  I don't know what else will get them to take their jobs seriously.  If they are really sure of guilt, and they convict, they have nothing to fear.  If they want to avoid jail, they should be sure.

    So, (none / 0) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:18:51 AM EST
    You had to get me started!

    Like stockbrokers, Judges, juries, and attorneys never lose, even when they lose. The only people who always lose are the plaintiff and the defendant.

    Example:
        A guy hires a licensed plumber to do some work on his furnace. The plumber, incompetent, and negligent, screws up the job, furnace blows up, and the guy's house is virtually destroyed. The homeowner sues plumber, figuring, "no problem," the insurance certificate he was given would take care of it. Turns out the Ins. Certificate only paid for the defense of the plumber, nada to the homeowner. Five years, and $75,000 later (attorneys don't take piddling little cases like this on contingency) a jury awards the homeowner enough money to rebuild the house; attorney's fees are not recoverable, nor are they tax deductable.

    Plumber appeals and the appellate court decides Judge made a faulty ruling somewhere, sets aside the verdict, and remands for a new trial.

    Got it? The Judge made an error, but does the Judge pay? Does the lawyer pay? Of course not; THEY made the error, but the innocent victim pays again, and again, and again.

    And you wonder why we hate lawyers.

    Parent

    No one will server on a jury (none / 0) (#3)
    by nyjets on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:18:27 AM EST
    "Get it wrong, then the jury should go to jail."
    No one will server on a jury with this hanging over there head. Either that or EVERY defendent will be found not guilty because the jury will be to afraid of going to jail.


    Parent
    Works for me:).... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:14:05 AM EST
    J/K...but maybe making every citizen serve 24 hours in a cage before jury service would be a good idea...like how cops have to get tased before getting issued a taser...just so they understand what is at stake.

    Or only let ex-cons serve on juries, and pay a decent wage for the service since it is harder for ex-cons to find work.

    Nah...the first suggestion is too cruel and tyrannical, the second nobody but me would go for...I don't know how you make juries understand the responsibility to the accused.

    Parent

    I do not know if you are serious or not (none / 0) (#5)
    by nyjets on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:30:49 AM EST
    But just in case you are serious:

    "...but maybe making every citizen serve 24 hours in a cage before jury service would be a good idea...just so they understand what is at stake."

    How about extending it so that a jury understands what the victim is going through. This way the jury understands both the defendent and the victim. (And i agree that that is a crazy as your suggestion.)
    "Or only let ex-cons serve on juries,"
    Again, no defendent would ever be found guilty of anything.

    Parent

    Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TChris on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    prosecutors do everything they can to make sure the jury understands "what the victim went through."  The sympathy generated by those blatant appeals to emotion tend to obscure the real question, which in many cases isn't "did a bad thing happen to the victim" but "did the person on trial cause the victim's suffering"?  Mistaken convictions are too often the result of jurors sympathizing with the victim.

    Parent
    Not serious... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:45:30 AM EST
    more thinking in print...though I don't think you give ex-cons enough credit.  They are ex-cons, not animals.

    Every system has f*ck-ups, ours is designed to err on the side of the accused...somewhere along the line that principal got lost, and juries started giving the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution.  

    Parent

    Just to clarify (none / 0) (#7)
    by eric on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:50:20 AM EST
    I am not seriously proposing jail for bad juries, but I do get extremely frustrated that juries do not take their jobs seriously enough and get it wrong.

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs.

    Maybe if there really was some sort of "important affair" actually at stake for the jury they wouldn't be so willing to convict.

    Parent

    Many of us do take it "seriously enough" (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:02:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Well, that's (none / 0) (#9)
    by eric on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    good.  But I've been on jury service and talked to lots of people about their jury service and definitely get the impression that many people do not understand the gravity of what is going on.

    Most remarkable are the people that almost dismissively talk about how quickly they were able to vote guilty and go home.

    Parent

    Could perhaps part of the problem (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    be jury selection? To blame juries without including those that put them there . . .  

    Parent
    Not really. (none / 0) (#12)
    by TChris on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:10:57 PM EST
    If you have a way to divine which jurors will take their jobs seriously and which won't, please share it. Asking them directly inevitably produces the assurance that they will follow the law in a neutral and unbiased way. Where do you go from there?

    Parent
    You mean to tell me you can't get some inkling (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    through general questioning and watching them/their body language during the questioning and before/after? I can generally tell which freelancers are going to be a PIA by the way they sit and their general demeanor, etc. I look for the same in hiring staff. It seems to me some of the same would show up with those that just want it done and over with . . .

    Parent
    Being (none / 0) (#14)
    by eric on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:24:59 PM EST
    serious, thoughtful, and giving good answers during voir dire is actually liable to get you struck from the panel - by the prosecutor.  That is what happened to me four times.  Prosecutors want a bunch of followers that can't think for themselves.  They would rather a group of people that don't really grasp the seriousness of taking away somebody's freedom.  IMO.

    Parent
    But it seems (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    That many criminal defense attorneys (and many lay people) want juries to convict their clients only where there is proof beyond any doubt, which is not the standard, nor should it ever be the standard.  

    I constantly read complaints here about prosecutors using sympathy for the victim (who, in many cases, cannot be there for themselves) to convict defendants, but defense attorneys always have the benefit of having their client present and it's their job to make them symptahteic.  But should juries release guilty defendants based on sympathy (Gee, we're sorry you had a bunch of stuff go on in your life, so you went out and got drunk and got in a fight with a guy at the bar who then died from the injuries you inflicted up on him)?

    Parent

    A Freedom March For the Wrongfully Convicted | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment