More evidence of why people don't trust the "system"

[hillfighter]

Another thing that I noticed was that Mr. Anderson doesn't have to turn himself in until December 2th.
That way he can spend Thanksgiving with his family, while Mr. Morton missed the last 25 years with his.

But some people will still insist the system is fair and Anderson didn't get a sweetheart deal.

[JALLEN]

That's because there is no crime for withholding evidence, or wrongful conviction or false prosecution, as far as I know. It is a violation of rules of court, duty of a lawyer etc. but not a penal matter.

Prosecutors are obliged to turn over to the defense all the evidence they possess, especially that which might exonerate a defendant.

Wouldn't the DA's intentionally withholding evidence, that might have exonerated the defendant, be an "obstruction of justice" ? And is that not a chargable offense?

I don't believe it is a state crime, but do not know. Obstruction of justice is a Federal crime.

In re-reading the news accounts, he was charged with "tampering with evidence." I believe that could be charged as a crime. I'm not familiar enough with the Texas criminal code.

[VoiceofReason]

That's because there is no crime for withholding evidence, or wrongful conviction or false prosecution, as far as I know. It is a violation of rules of court, duty of a lawyer etc. but not a penal matter.

Prosecutors are obliged to turn over to the defense all the evidence they possess, especially that which might exonerate a defendant.

Wouldn't the DA's intentionally withholding evidence, that might have exonerated the defendant, be an "obstruction of justice" ? And is that not a chargable offense?

I don't believe it is a state crime, but do not know. Obstruction of justice is a Federal crime.

In re-reading the news accounts, he was charged with "tampering with evidence." I believe that could be charged as a crime. I'm not familiar enough with the Texas criminal code.

I believe defendants have been charged with and convicted of "tampering with evidence" before.

[JALLEN]

I believe defendants have been charged with and convicted of "tampering with evidence" before.

Of course, all crimes have a specific statutory definition. The defendant has to commit a defined act to be convicted. As is customary, "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

I found that Texas defines "tampering with evidence" thusly:

§ 37.09. TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing that an
investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:
(1) alters, destroys, or conceals any record,
document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or
availability as evidence in the investigation or official
proceeding; or
(2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or
thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the
course or outcome of the investigation or official proceeding.
(b) This section shall not apply if the record, document, or
thing concealed is privileged or is the work product of the parties
to the investigation or official proceeding.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a) or Subsection (d)(1) is
a felony of the third degree. An offense under Subsection (d)(2) is
a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) knowing that an offense has been committed,
alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with
intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as
evidence in any subsequent investigation of or official proceeding
related to the offense; or
(2) observes human remains under circumstances in
which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been
committed, knows or reasonably should know that a law enforcement
agency is not aware of the existence of or location of the remains,
and fails to report the existence of and location of the remains to
a law enforcement agency.

"Concealing" evidence is included. What this might consist of in the case of a District Attorney picking and choosing what evidence to present at trial is a puzzle. Surely it cannot mean that the D/A has to present at trial every shred and modicum of "evidence" in his possession; trials are tedious enough. But it might serve the ends of justice to include "concealing" exculpatory evidence from the defendant.

The defense has a big stake in knowing the prosecutor's evidence. Trial by surprise is not justice. The defendant must have the opportunity to gather evidence to rebut or impugn evidence against him/her. "Confront and cross-examine" is otherwise a hollow phrase.

[WildBill]

Another thing that I noticed was that Mr. Anderson doesn't have to turn himself in until December 2th.
That way he can spend Thanksgiving with his family, while Mr. Morton missed the last 25 years with his.

But some people will still insist the system is fair and Anderson didn't get a sweetheart deal.

Some people still insist the moon is made of cheese.

[JALLEN]

Another thing that I noticed was that Mr. Anderson doesn't have to turn himself in until December 2th.
That way he can spend Thanksgiving with his family, while Mr. Morton missed the last 25 years with his.

But some people will still insist the system is fair and Anderson didn't get a sweetheart deal.

That is not uncommon when dealing with non violent criminals. The judge in Jesse Jackson, Jr case even staggered the prison time of Jackson and his wife so as to not leave the kids parentless.

The defendant is out on bond, and the circumstances strongly suggest the prisoner will surrender as promised. It is as much in the interest of prison management as the defendant.

I'm not sure how much I would enjoy Thanksgiving if I had that hanging over my head.

Stick to complaining about the ten days.

[jollyman]

Judges, DAs and defense attorneys all know that prosecutors sometimes withhold evidence if it hurts their case.

Isn't it illegal to withhold evidence? Seems like judges, DAs, and defense attorneys should be eager to fight government corruption.

[VoiceofReason]

I believe defendants have been charged with and convicted of "tampering with evidence" before.

Of course, all crimes have a specific statutory definition. The defendant has to commit a defined act to be convicted. As is customary, "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

I found that Texas defines "tampering with evidence" thusly:

§ 37.09. TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing that an
investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:
(1) alters, destroys, or conceals any record,
document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or
availability as evidence in the investigation or official
proceeding; or
(2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or
thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the
course or outcome of the investigation or official proceeding.
(b) This section shall not apply if the record, document, or
thing concealed is privileged or is the work product of the parties
to the investigation or official proceeding.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a) or Subsection (d)(1) is
a felony of the third degree. An offense under Subsection (d)(2) is
a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) knowing that an offense has been committed,
alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with
intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as
evidence in any subsequent investigation of or official proceeding
related to the offense; or
(2) observes human remains under circumstances in
which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been
committed, knows or reasonably should know that a law enforcement
agency is not aware of the existence of or location of the remains,
and fails to report the existence of and location of the remains to
a law enforcement agency.

"Concealing" evidence is included. What this might consist of in the case of a District Attorney picking and choosing what evidence to present at trial is a puzzle. Surely it cannot mean that the D/A has to present at trial every shred and modicum of "evidence" in his possession; trials are tedious enough. But it might serve the ends of justice to include "concealing" exculpatory evidence from the defendant.

The defense has a big stake in knowing the prosecutor's evidence. Trial by surprise is not justice. The defendant must have the opportunity to gather evidence to rebut or impugn evidence against him/her. "Confront and cross-examine" is otherwise a hollow phrase.

During discovery does the prosecutor have to disclose to the defense all evidence or just what he will present at trial?

I believe I know the answer to that but I would like to know what the prosecutor must disclose to the defense and what (if anything) he is not required to.

[bizarrenormality]

During discovery does the prosecutor have to disclose to the defense all evidence or just what he will present at trial?

I believe I know the answer to that but I would like to know what the prosecutor must disclose to the defense and what (if anything) he is not required to.

They have to disclose almost everything now. Very narrow exceptions.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 01611F.htm

[WildBill]

During discovery does the prosecutor have to disclose to the defense all evidence or just what he will present at trial?

I believe I know the answer to that but I would like to know what the prosecutor must disclose to the defense and what (if anything) he is not required to.

They have to disclose almost everything now. Very narrow exceptions.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 01611F.htm

Interesting that this law is known as the Michael Morton Act, April 13, 2013.
Interesting noting the lineouts and additions.

[JALLEN]

Judges, DAs and defense attorneys all know that prosecutors sometimes withhold evidence if it hurts their case.

Isn't it illegal to withhold evidence? Seems like judges, DAs, and defense attorneys should be eager to fight government corruption.

Laugh if you must but no defense attorney worth anything will sit idly by and let that happen. You want to know EVERYTHING the prosecution has, and more besides. Evidence that hurts their case, exculpatory to the defense, is especially vital. You can ruin a prosecutors career catching him deliberately fiddling with evidence, if you are right.

The weak link is that few defendants have the resources to fully investigate and examine the state's evidence fully and thoroughly. When they do have the resources, all sorts of anomalies pop up. You catch the state's witness in a big fat fib. Right, Detective Fuhrman? Fuhrman managed to get himself convicted of perjury for his performance in the Simpson murder case.

Whatever, you still have to turn over evidence to the defense, even if you don't plan to use it at trial.

[cb1000rider]

Ten days of a DA's live is equal to 25 of a mere citizen.

That's correct. He's part of law enforcement and as sentenced appropriately by his peers.
If he's not ready to retire, at least he'll be facing some financial hardship.

[cb1000rider]

Isn't it illegal to withhold evidence? Seems like judges, DAs, and defense attorneys should be eager to fight government corruption.

Course, Judges, DAs, and defense attorneys are often concerned with the statistics surrounding their careers. I assume it would be relatively easy to get a bit more interested in the self serving career at the cost of a few convictions.

The other side of the coin is that defense attorneys probably aren't going to provide evidence that convicts their clients...

One thing it points out to me is this: This is the system that runs our capital punishment. You have to factually accept, if you support the death penalty, sooner or later we're going to kill someone that is both legally and factually innocent to be able to kill the rest of the legally and factually guilty group. If you don't think that's the case, then you're not living in the real world.

[mamabearCali]

Isn't it illegal to withhold evidence? Seems like judges, DAs, and defense attorneys should be eager to fight government corruption.

Course, Judges, DAs, and defense attorneys are often concerned with the statistics surrounding their careers. I assume it would be relatively easy to get a bit more interested in the self serving career at the cost of a few convictions.

The other side of the coin is that defense attorneys probably aren't going to provide evidence that convicts their clients...

One thing it points out to me is this: This is the system that runs our capital punishment. You have to factually accept, if you support the death penalty, sooner or later we're going to kill someone that is both legally and factually innocent to be able to kill the rest of the legally and factually guilty group. If you don't think that's the case, then you're not living in the real world.

This is why as conservative as I am I am only lightly supportive of the death penalty. When a person can be sentenced to death based on the word of 1 witness with little other evidence....I am not comfortable with that.

This whole incident is part of the reason I tend to view LEO's in a similar light as german shepherds....great dogs, when properly trained and socialized (IMO one of the best breeds), but if they go bad they are very dangerous indeed.

[Oldgringo]

{snipity, snip, snip}

This whole incident is part of the reason I tend to view LEO's in a similar light as german shepherds....great dogs, when properly trained and socialized (IMO one of the best breeds), but if they go bad they are very dangerous indeed.

Hmmm? an interesting correlation for sure.