Excerpt: " . . . the standard that Vance and his assistants employed in deciding to dismiss the case is noteworthy and laudable. "If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt," the prosecution wrote in its motion to dismiss, referring to Diallo, 'we cannot ask a jury to do so.' This is not the bar all prosecutors set in deciding whether or not to go forward. Ethical rules prohibit lawyers from calling a witness whose testimony they know to be false; but the rule is not the same when the testimony is possibly true but dubious. Particularly in urban criminal courts, where caseloads tend to be overwhelming and the police sometimes push cases aggressively, prosecutors are often not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of particular testimony. Frequently they leave it to jurors to determine the credibility of a particular witness. In trying to talk prosecutors out of weak cases, I have been told more than once, "I wasn't there, man, and neither were you. Let the 12 of them figure it out."
"In practice, this means that even defendants who are probably innocent must endure the anguish of trial. I once represented a young man in a gang murder case who had been arrested and indicted along with eight other people, even though his name was never mentioned in the grand jury testimony. Although it seemed clear that the police had mistaken this young man for his brother, both the prosecutors and the judge told me to 'put it on,' meaning go to trial; the client sat in court for several days, in jeopardy of a lengthy prison term, before the case against him was finally dismissed."
Source: http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Home/5740322-182/reasonable_doubt_and_the_strauss-kahn_case.csp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
What happens to a Nations law enforcement system, where the truth is no longer a fundamental principle??
DSK could afford to protect himself, while many guys (especially young men) sit in jails waiting for their appeal.
Many will even plead guilty to lessor charges just to get out of prison in 2 years from his false rape accusation, rather than spending half his life in prison on a false rape accusation.
This reminds me of an article I read that surveyed the attitudes of Australian prosecutors in rape cases. What it boiled down to was that even when prosecutors were convinced that there was no chance of conviction they would proceed to trial as it was up to juries to descide reasonable doubt (though they would attempt the dissuade the person making the allegations on the grounds that they were putting themselves through a trial with little chance of getting the outcome they wanted).
This was commended as fair and a laudible attitude as it showed the were believing the victims.
I think that this
http://www.apo.org.au/research/victim-credibility-adult-sexual-assault-cases
is it.
So the idea is that seasoned prosecutors, their many assistance, dozens of police, god only knows how many detectives, investigators, etc...
All this bunch cannot figure it out, but they want 12 civilians with NO training to figure it out?
It's as Pierce says, playing Russian Roulette, hoping that the prosecutor can dupe 12 people in a case he doesn't believe in.
The prosecutors that Turow was trying to talk out are criminals that should be in prison.
Thank you, Zarko. Exactly. Throw a man they think might just be innocent to the jury and hope they "get lucky."
That is exactly what feminist groups are whining about - throw him to the wolves and "hope" they get lucky.
Lucky meaning an innocent man gets convicted on on evidence.
'cause THAT'S justice, feminist style.
We don't need no stinking Constitution.
Could an American prosecutor be held accountable for knowingly stamping on a mans constitutional rights to adequately defend himself.
Post a Comment