Sunday, April 15, 2012

On the unchecked power of cats and prosecutors; the unseen oversight of judges

Here are a few odds and ends that may interest Grits readers:

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

The prosecutors are the villains--no doubt about it.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

No, IMO it's the cats.

Jeff said...

If the cat is legit, we must acquit! Texas needs no more tall tales.

S and C said...

Jester I does not have a cat problem that I'm aware of. Instead they have a roach and ant problem. At least having a few cats around might help with the roaches...both are nocturnal creatures, after all.

Anonymous said...

I regularly see cats at the Michael Unit. Not sure it is a problem, though. I just thought it made sense to keep the rodent population down.

Anonymous said...

Balko Article is very good and is the kind of discussions that need to take front seat right now. Justice, innocent until proven guilty, are have become words that don't appear to be sincere anymore.
It is an absolute shame that law enforcement officer, a neighbor, a child, can accuse anyone of anything and there is a high probability that you will be arrested, tossed in jail, possibly lose your job, go bankrupt hiring someone to defend you, only to have the case dismissed 2 years down the road. No civil recourse against a prosecutor to recover any of you loss because prosecutors have immunity. That is just way, way too much discretion to wreck someone's life.

LLR said...

I am just reading a new book just released that I want to recommend for anyone interested in this subject. ANATOMY OF INJUSTICE, A Murder Case Gone Wrong by Pulitzer Prize winner Raymond Bonner. It is the case of Edward Lee Elmore, a semiliterate, mentally retarded black man who given the death penalty for the death of an elderly white widow in Greenwood, SC. Fascinating read. Sounds like the Texas Problem to me.

Arachne646 said...

But no one has suggested humanely trap, spay, neuter, and release prosecutors and judges? They are territorial too.

Anonymous said...

I have been saying all along about the evil on the Crain Unit. They treat the inmates just as bad as the cats. They only bent to outside public pressure on the cats. I wonder how many people are in prison down there for the same thing. They were more than happy to abuse the cats too because that is the culture down there. There is a Hoe squad guard on the Terrace Unit that will demean around 15 women at a time in the strip search shack after work and bring many to tears with her brand of humiliation and demeaning treatment. Several inmate and family have complain and their complaints go no where. I understand the need for the searches but the people running the prison will say they do not humiliate. This female officer does do it and the unit officials turn a blind eye, she will even provoke them in front of a dozen or so inmates. There is something wrong with this brand of public humiliation. But what do you expect from a unit that has stop giving cleaning supplies for the inmates to clean the toilets and showers, violates TDCJ rules by only issuing one razor a month for the women to shave with when all the other units receive one a week. Evil people I tell you.

Anonymous said...

I think it's especially ironic that Balko would mention the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case in a column advocating limitations on prosecutor discretion. If ever there were a case where most people agree that a jury should ultimately make the final decision as to guilt or innocence, THAT is the one. And yet most prosecutors and defense attorneys who look at the known facts of that case agree that while there may be probable cause to justify the 2nd degree Murder charge, it is going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when confronted with Florida's stand your ground law. This would have been a very easy case for the prosecutor to take the easy way out and either decline charges altogether or attempt to persuade a grand jury to no bill the case. For a prosecutor whose primary motive is to get convictions rather than "seeking justice," this is NOT the case to take to trial.

In high profile public cases like this, do we really want to limit prosecutor independence and discretion by having them worry about the potential for a "not guilty?"

There are several different types of cases that the evidentiary "filters" and limitations on prosecutor charging discretion advocated by Balko would likely impact negatively.

First are child sexual abuse "by touching" cases where the evidence consists completely upon the word of the child victim against the word of the defendant. Veteran child abuse prosecutors will tell you that in those cases, while there may be enough "probable cause" to file a charge or get past a grand jury, proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is often difficult. Should child victims in these cases not have an opportunity to have a trial jury make the final determination?

Second, are "date rape" cases where again it's the word of the victim against the word of the defendant. The fact that intercourse happened and the existance of possible DNA evidence is not contested or important. The sole issue is whether the woman consented to have sex or was forced. Should it be up to the police or the prosecutor to decide which side they think is telling the truth? Or should that decision be made by a jury?

Third, are cases involving domestic violence or abuse. In these cases, victims of abuse frequently recant for many reasons. We've all heard about the "cycle of violence." Most domestic violence prosecutors know that these can be extremely hard cases to prove with an uncooperative victim--even when there is evidence of prior abuse. While there may be probable cause for a charge in these cases, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard can be very difficult to overcome in these cases. Does Balko want to limit prosecutor discretion in these cases?

What about cases involving public figures, wealthy individuals or elected individuals who can easily mount a defense? Should these individuals get a pass, especially in close cases, just because a prosecutor is worrying about getting a "not guilty?"

It seems to me that in this whole discussion about limiting prosecutor discretion or limiting prosecutor immunity, there are some very real unintended consequences that need to be considered. While there obviously needs to be some mechanism for the unethical "bad apples" to be sanctioned or held accountable, I do think it's important that prosecuting attorneys remain independent and courageous especially when it comes to making decisions about tough cases and cases that are "high profile." Ultimately, like the Trayvon Martin case, there are some cases that "just need to be tried." I'm not sure I want that prosecutor worrying about an acquittal or choosing not to proceed just because she's afraid she might lose. Regardless of the fact that that is one of those "borderline" cases, that case needs to be tried.

Anonymous said...

@ 12:42
There will unfortunately be those "grey area" cases.

I still believe that Innocent until proven guilty should prevail.

To say that everyone is guilty until proven innocent may alleviate some of those grey area cases. However it will at the same time result in many innocent people being wrongfully deprived of their liberties with no recourse. This then becomes the norm for prosecuting all cases rather than the exception because it is a road of less resistance. (laziness basically).

Essentially prosecutors with your viewpoint are asserting that no one lies to get someone else arrested.

Anonymous said...

@8:25. No one said anything about doing away with the presumption of innocence. Nor did anyone dispute that sometimes complainants lie. The question, ultimately, is who needs to be making the final determination in those borderline, controversial and "he said, she said" cases. Do you want prosecutors rejecting these cases just because they may be difficult or because the outcome might depend on who is most credible? In that circumstance, I think you're going to have a lot of real victims who will ultimately be prevented from having THEIR day in court.

Anonymous said...

@ 8:39...The question, ultimately, is who needs to be making the final determination in those borderline, controversial and "he said, she said" cases. Do you want prosecutors rejecting these cases just because they may be difficult or because the outcome might depend on who is most credible?

Not sure that rejecting or accepting a case to prosecute based on difficulty or credibility should be the determining criterion. Shouldn't it be based on solid probable cause and solid evidence. Prosecutors should ensure against, the instances as you have mentioned, the urge to manipulate in order to establish probable cause, and to rely on exculpatory evidence in order for someone to have their day in court.

In short, until prosecutors give an account for every case, reporting reasons for REJECTED CASES and ACCEPTED CASES, it will be difficult to establish any consistency.

Your quote:
What about cases involving public figures, wealthy individuals or elected individuals who can easily mount a defense? Should these individuals get a pass, especially in close cases, just because a prosecutor is worrying about getting a "not guilty?"

Fact of the matter is if someone retains a lawyer and decides to go to trial prosecutors squirm out and cut toothless deals because "it wasn't a good case." Regardless of credibility or of difficult of the case.

Lets be honest, the real criterion for who is prosecuted is based more on a win/loss ratio to use for election fodder.

Anonymous said...

So essentially you're advocating that cases which rest on the testimony of a single victim, without any other evidence of a crime, not be prosecuted at all? I'm sure lots of abused kids and date rape victims will be pleased that you're closing the courthouse doors to them.

Anonymous said...

@12:19pm
Not at all what is being advocated.

If the door is opened, no the door has been opened, for overreliance solely on the testimony of a single victim when no other evidence exists. You seem to imply that moral conscience provokes bending the rules when prosecuting "...lots of abused kids and date rape victims." Most of society could probably accept your position when dealing with only these two type of victims. But in reality what has happened is that "testimony of single victims without any other evidence of a crime" is no longer limited to just abused kids and date rape victims. This is standard op for prosecuting any and all cases. Except for political hot potatoes and they seem to get a prosecutor pass irregardless.