Sharp as a Marble - It's a good system, fundamental to freedom

<< Most pathetic | Home | DADT – Views from a socially conservative, politically liberal former Marine >>

It's a good system, fundamental to freedom

Views

There is no justice in breaking the law to ensure a conviction. Gene Weingarten tells his tale of police misconduct in the courtroom

Last week I was a juror in the trial of a man accused of selling a $10 bag of heroin to an undercover police officer. At the end of the two days of testimony, I concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I also concluded that he should be acquitted.

Read the whole thing for all the details, but rest assured I would have been right there with him in agreement.

The drug war is a failure of epic proportions. The assault on our freedoms has not deterred the drug trade and has only made our society poorer than if we simply worked on education and treatment. Alas, the need to convict someone over $10 has turned our police force against us. As Gene says

I think a police officer willing to cheat is more dangerous than a two-bit drug peddler.

I think he's right.

posted @ 2/3/2010 8:01:01 PM

Comments

Hypnagogue says:

on 2/3/2010 9:11:19 PM

Say it with me, once again: jury nullification. Learn it, teach it, practice it. Nothing says "I love this country, but hate this government" like "Not Guilty!"

Straight Arrow is convinced that it won't work, but it does.

Ben says:

on 2/4/2010 12:16:59 AM

The only thing I have to say is did the reporter not consider that the "eyes" had a set of binoculars or some other device that allowed him to see that detail at the longer distance?
Now that does not mean that the officer didn't lie but it could mean an incompetent prosecutor that A)failed to verify the distance and B)failed to bring up the fact that binoculars were used.

straightarrow says:

on 2/4/2010 2:11:43 AM

Uh, Hypnagogue, you couldn't be more wrong. I am a firm believer in jury nullification. In fact, on several blog sites I have had some rather heated arguments with those who oppose it. Mostly lawyers, but still somewhat human, I have been assured. I don't know who you have me confused with, but please quit it.

The only time I can remember that I didn't criticize a jury for not nullifying is when they had no chance to see the contradictions in the evidence. That, they cannot be blamed for. They had to make the best decision they could with what was presented to them. Here is where I am in favor of jailing judges who gut a defendant's case to fix a trial. Doesn't make the jury guilty of malfeasance, make them dupes. It happens every day. Don't like it, but until we clean the bench, it will continue to happen.

I don't believe it is as effective as it should be because judges routinely lie to and misinform juries, rather than fully apprise them of not only their duty but their powers in the courtroom.

My credo on that is if the state lies or cheats, they lose. Period. No matter the guilt of innocence of the defendant. You don't do it because of sympathy for the defendant, you do it for the rest of America.

As to this article, I read it last week and was pleasantly surprised that there was more than one juror in the box who actually was fully informed. I would have voted the same way Gene would have given the chance. I am glad that there were jurors who understood the issue and did the right thing.

straightarrow says:

on 2/4/2010 2:23:26 AM

You must admit that for more than one juror in a panel of ordinary people to know their duties and powers is a rare occurrence. It shouldn't be, but it is. And judges perpetuate this condition by not fully informing the jury.

An innocent defendant who is being framed does not have much of a chance if he relies only on the hope of a fully informed juror on his case, who can, at worst hang the jury, at best, swing them.

I assure you, I am a major proponent of jury nullification in the following scenarios; the law is unconstitutional, the prosecution cheats or lies, withholds exculpatory evidence (although that is hardly ever known by the jury, during the trial, however, there are tip-offs), the witnesses for the prosecution lie as is obvious in this particular case. There are probably more, but that should be enough to make my point.

I would simply ignore any instruction from any judge who instructed me to decide whether the law was broken only and not to consider the law's validity.

Michael Hawkins says:

on 2/4/2010 7:23:38 AM

"To serve justice and to serve the justice system are two different things"

(... for what is justice but a personal belief, an arbitrary conviction cherished in ones heart and mind, and what is the justice system but a tool for people who came to be in power, to exercise their power over those who have none, for a purpose that is their own.

This tends to go badly for those out of power, without exception. As those of benevolent meaning hardly ever seek great power, and those of great power only briefly ever retain their good intentions)

Xrlq says:

on 2/4/2010 10:17:23 PM

Re the heading, what's your point? That two wrongs don't make a right but three wrongs do?

Robb Allen says:

on 2/4/2010 10:33:05 PM

More like a Sophie's Choice.

In this instance, doing 'right' - i.e. convicting the drug dealer - results in a wrong, namely Cops are rewarded for abusing their power. In my opinion, that's worse than the guy selling $10 worth of drugs. So, left with two bad choices, I'd go for the one that ends up being beneficial to me.

Personally, if I were God King, Ruler of All He Surveys, the facts of the case would stand, regardless of how they were achieved and the criminal would be brought to justice. Then, the cops who lied would also be brought up on charges. Then, you have two rights.

deadcenter says:

on 2/5/2010 1:31:27 AM

When I look at the War on (some) Drugs, I have to shake my head in wonder that we have people in power and people that continue to elect them that think we can win. Did Prohibition teach us nothing? Apparently the answer is yes.

Lysander says:

on 2/5/2010 4:05:24 PM

Deadcenter - the answer is one word:
Breathalyzer.

I'm with Robb on this one. I have to admit, though, when I read the pulled quotes, I thought that the original article was going to go in an entirely different direction - one I would not agree with.

Anon says:

on 2/5/2010 5:03:49 PM

Two things that Gene Weingarten doesn't mention in this article: he's a former heroine addict and he favors legalization. Given that he failed to mention these two quite salient facts, should we have any more faith in his story than he did in the cops?

Rick R. says:

on 2/6/2010 9:39:09 PM

Anon,

Weingarten's past doesn't make his article less relevant.

It's like OJ.

I believe he did it.

I also believe it was pretty conclusively proven -- by prosecution witnesses, including FBI experts -- that he was framed.

I would have voted for acquittal.

Mycroft says:

on 2/7/2010 12:05:57 PM

The other possibility is that the "eyes" had the suspect under surveillance for some time prior to the exchange, noted his appearance, then witnessed him move off to complete the exchange.
Of course, if this was the case the prosecution should explained it in his case.

Anon says:

on 2/7/2010 11:19:28 PM

@Rick R
my point is/was given that the author isn't including the whole truth, how can we trust his view of the trial?

For the record: if you follow the authors weekly chat, he makes no secret of his past, but he specifically doesn't mention these things in the article. (he can be quite funny when he keeps his libtard views in check). My point is: you can't trust this account of the trial any more than you could trust all the fawning articles about the Obamafraud.

Rick R. says:

on 2/9/2010 3:32:46 PM

Anon,

Well, since we're merely commenting on the trial, not marching in the streets in protest, it really doesn't change the point, even if the author lied about everything -- even if he wasn't even called up for jury duty.

His point would still stand as a parable.

The important point is that, when you know the cops have lied, then not rewarding their abuse of the system is more important than a prosecution of a petty criminal for a dime bag.

Given the PUBLIC TRUST and AUTHORITY with which cops are endowed via their job, it is critical to hold them to the highest ethical standards in court.

If the prosecutors start noticing that cases fall apart when thre cops are making stuff up, then THEY will ensure that the cops are credible witnesses before risking their reputation pushing a loser case.

Which, in the end, is more important than the societal damage of letting individual criminals get away.

If, on the other hand, you encourage the police to play dirty by rewarding their lies (in cases where they KNOW the guy is guilty), that is FAR MORE damaging to society than losing all the DUI, streetwalking, and dime bag cases the cops push by being dirty.

What if the lying cops get used to the idea that they can just make stuff up and get away with it? Do you really think that they will hold back long in making up cases out of whole cloth, based on their hunches, the Hell with probable cause? History shows they haven't hesitated anywhere else they could get away with it. . . because, badge or no, they are still HUMAN.

The guardians MUST be held to the highest standards, or all of society suffers. Not because we are ignoring that they are human, with normal human frailties -- BECAUSE we acknowledge it.

Comments have been closed on this topic.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links