The wrong Carlos: how Texas sent an innocent man to his death

[ryoder 1,590]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/15/carlos-texas-innocent-man-death

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 2,148]

Again?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

This case is something that does highlight problems with the system. One of them is that a trial that was conducted in 1983 - and an execution in 1999 - appeared to have had few legal irregularities. The problem was in defense proof.

Other practical problems are demonstrated. The report here required six years of investigation with the prof and several law students. it's unfortunate that most defendants and lawyers don't have that level of resources. It shows some very pragmatic issues with trials nowadays.

And don't get me started again on prosecutors, who are tops on my legal shit list.

I'll state my position again: I have no philosophical opposition to capital punishment. I have a significant issue with how it is being used. I think that capital punishment should be reserved for the worst of the worst, i.e., a person who kills people in prison or has people killed from prison. If prison cannot prevent a person from killing, I think that person should be done away with. I'll cite Clarence Ray Allen as an example of a person that I think execution was entirely appropriate.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The report here required six years of investigation with the prof and several law students.

It took 1 PI less than a day to prove the existence of the other Carlos.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

I'll state my position again: I have no philosophical opposition to capital punishment. I have a significant issue with how it is being used. I think that capital punishment should be reserved for the worst of the worst, i.e., a person who kills people in prison or has people killed from prison. If prison cannot prevent a person from killing, I think that person should be done away with. I'll cite Clarence Ray Allen as an example of a person that I think execution was entirely appropriate.

Agreed

Performance Designs Factory Team

[davjohns 1]

I'll just throw out a couple of things...

Jerry obviously investigated this more than I did. I can't imagine the guy was convicted just on the evidendce of arson. There had to be more. The articles I saw totally ignored that. Things like that make me stop looking.

The declarations of innocence are always a red herring. God knows if you are innocent. Courts deal in 'guilty beyond a reaonable doubt' and 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. Innocence is a term used by advocates for emotional reaction. Things like that make me stop looking.

I kept seeing that the follow-on evaluations were being pushed by organizations who oppose the death penalty. That may or may not be a good source of information for argument. But basing a proclamation of innocence on just one side's arguments is suspect. It almost assumes the courts, attorney general, everyone in the system and even the governor have no interest in justice. Things like that make me stop looking.

I am one who needs to be persuaded, not argued. Nothing I came across even attempted to persuade me.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

almost assumes the courts, attorney general, everyone in the system and even the governor have no interest in justice.

They don't.

They have an interest in perceived justice, since that aids in re-election.

Quick arrests and convictions score high on the perception of justice.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

The report here required six years of investigation with the prof and several law students.

It took 1 PI less than a day to prove the existence of the other Carlos.

Yep. The Defendant himself knew Carlos, knew how to find him and knew people who knew him. I mean, really! What the hell?

I'm not saying there weren't issues with factual investigation. We get them all the time. But we KNOW that the guy's existence was argued enough that the prosecutor saw that it was worthy of a response, so the evidence was there. Just not enough for the jury to believe.

At this point I have no idea whether the guy was factually innocent. This, to me, is a problem all its own.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

almost assumes the courts, attorney general, everyone in the system and even the governor have no interest in justice.

They don't.

They have an interest in perceived justice, since that aids in re-election.

Quick arrests and convictions score high on the perception of justice.

I agree that is an issue. I'm not cynical enough to say that the system is completely corrupt regardless of the evidence.

And your argument works against in this case as well. The negative publicity from killing someone who can be shown to have not committed the crime is even more politically volatile than public perception of you being weak on crime.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The negative publicity from killing someone who can be shown to have not committed the crime is even more politically volatile than public perception of you being weak on crime.

26 years later you have already received all the "rewards" of your quick arrest and conviction. There will be little to no negative consequences to the judge, DA or police officers involved.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Courts deal in 'guilty beyond a reaonable doubt' and 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Ah, um... never mind.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There will be little to no negative consequences to the judge, DA or police officers involved

The judge will not - and should not - face any consequence in this. No more than the jurors. The judge doesn't make findings of fact except on those circumstances where the judge grants a nonsuit or JNOV.

The DA? No. DA's face no consequences unless disciplined by the Bar, and that is rare enough. Hence, they are on my shit list. A couple of years ago, a rogue DA was suspended for five years out here.

The cops? They're the ones who usually get sued.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

"not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"

Could you explain what you mean by this? You are aware of which party has the burden in a criminal case, right?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

"not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"

Could you explain what you mean by this? You are aware of which party has the burden in a criminal case, right?

Yep. The defendant.
If you really buy into the idea that we are innocent until proven guilty, you are not seeing reality. This thread (and Kallend's link) are real, not uncommon events.
If you are a defendant, you'd best be doing everything you can to prove your innocence. Sitting back playing the "prove me guilty beyond reasonable doubt" game will often blow up in your face.


From the OP article:
"A few years ago, Antonin Scalia, one of the nine justices on the US supreme court, made a bold statement. There has not been, he said, "a single case – not one – in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred … the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops."

Stupid judge. We've been screaming for years and he, in his golden throne, is not listening.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

"not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"

Could you explain what you mean by this? You are aware of which party has the burden in a criminal case, right?

Sure.

Juries do not and cannot find a defendant 'innocent'. Innocent means that you are completely without blame. Only God and the individual have any clue on that matter. Juries can find someone 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. That means that they would readily rely on this fact in their most personal affairs (one explanation the courts give).

Alternately, a jury can find someone 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. That could mean anything from 'we think he was on another planet when this crime was committed' to 'we are quite certain he did it. He will not be left alone with our daughters. But the evidence didn't quite reach the legal standard.'. It is logically impossible for a jury to declare someone 'innocent'. That's a word that gets thrown around by people who are trying to manipulate the situation. In reality, innocent is an ideal that is too absolute to be knowable.

Example: O.J. Simpson was found 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. He was NOT found innocent in the criminal court. A civil court, where the burden of proof was not 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but 'preponderance of the evidence' (That means someone has to win. Pick one.) found that he DID commit the crime (or 'more likely than not' committed the crime). How could the civil court say he did it when the criminal court said he was innocent? Because the criminal court did not and could not declare him innocent. The criminal court merely found that the state did not prove he was 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.

I know it sounds funny. I blame it on the wording of 'presumed innocent until proven guilty'. But the truth is that nobody is innocent. They aren't necessarily guilty of a crime and often not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But innocent is a whole other matter.

And yes...as an attorney, I'm fairly familiar with who has the burden of proof in a criminal case in the US. That doesn't change the fact that I can kill someone in cold blood; be tried and acquitted, and; clearly not be innocent. It happens every day.

Edit to add - Andy and Jerry: Feel free to chime in if I'm in error or unclear.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

That doesn't change the fact that I can kill someone in cold blood; be tried and acquitted, and; clearly not be innocent.

And you can be tried and convicted of a crime of which you are innocent. Happens every day.

Guilty is just as laden a word as innocent. Frankly I have no idea what your problem with it is.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jclalor 12]

I have never fully understood why those who claim the Government to be so inept and never to be trusted, have no problem with them executing it's people.

It will take more than just executing innocent people, it will take the execution of a decent innocent person to change the views of society.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I have never fully understood why those who claim the Government to be so inept and never to be trusted, have no problem with them executing it's people

I likewise don't understand how people who think the government to be incompetent when executing people can be trusted for anything else. Both sides of the coin.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

That whole argument is stupid. Just because a person, institution, company, government is good/bad at one thing doesn't mean they are automatically good/bad at something else.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

***

Quote

Quote

I have never fully understood why those who claim the Government to be so inept and never to be trusted, have no problem with them executing it's people

I likewise don't understand how people who think the government to be incompetent when executing people can be trusted for anything else. Both sides of the coin.

Once the Government can conspire for your execution, everything else seems a very distant second, once your life is taken, liberty and the pursuit of happniness is a moot point.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Once the Government can conspire for your execution, everything else seems a very distant second, once your life is taken, liberty and the pursuit of happniness is a moot point.

Once the government can conspire for your imprisonment, it's the same thing. When the government can conspire to abrogate ANY liberty, freedom or right. Or can conspire to place upon a person an additional duty or onus.

We draw lines in different places. I view all of it with mistrust.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Once the Government can conspire for your execution, everything else seems a very distant second, once your life is taken, liberty and the pursuit of happniness is a moot point.

Once the government can conspire for your imprisonment, it's the same thing. When the government can conspire to abrogate ANY liberty, freedom or right. Or can conspire to place upon a person an additional duty or onus.

We draw lines in different places. I view all of it with mistrust.

I particularly liked the use of the word "conspire".

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[lawrocket 3]

I myself liked the word. jclalor -

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AndyBoyd 0]

You should ask the law school you attended for your money back. Juries do not find anyone "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." They find defendants either guilty or not guilty. The prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has no burden whatsoever. And civil juries do not find that anyone "committed a crime." They find the defendant either liable or not liable.

[davjohns 1]

Please go to law school and get back to me on this. Meanwhile, read my post again. I didn't say the civil jury found him guilty. They found that he did commit the act he was accused of.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.