tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post2183450635403356858..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Six* Itemskcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-12481463620197369012009-09-01T11:45:23.475-04:002009-09-01T11:45:23.475-04:00Good, Chris.
Yes, it's very long.
As usual, ...Good, Chris.<br /><br />Yes, it's very long.<br /><br />As usual, you are ahead of the game!<br /><br /><b>:>)</b>Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-69984742098427374802009-09-01T09:57:37.870-04:002009-09-01T09:57:37.870-04:00Debrah,
I posted an advertisement for this articl...Debrah,<br /><br />I posted an advertisement for this article on my blog last night (viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com). It is a long article, but it has many insights. There is a connection between the Willingham case and the Adams case, namely the testimony of defrocked psychiatrist James Grigson.<br /><br />ChrisChris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-66987063164289557542009-09-01T08:06:40.287-04:002009-09-01T08:06:40.287-04:00Some of you guys might want to read this very leng...Some of you guys might want to read this very lengthy article from <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann" rel="nofollow">The New Yorker</a>Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-9012405856912468682009-08-31T20:40:44.481-04:002009-08-31T20:40:44.481-04:00RRH,
Your comments might be construed to dispute ...RRH,<br /><br />Your comments might be construed to dispute the premise of the book “Race to Injustice,” several chapters of which used the DL case as jumping off point for discussing issues such as lineups, the grand jury system, or indigent defendants.<br /><br />Collin Finnerty stated, “There seemed to be some flaws in the legal system that should be addressed. For example, the fact that in North Carolina there are no recordings of what was said in the Grand Jury and also the need to establish checks and balances on the total power of the DA (http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/04/collin-finnerty-statement.html<br />).”<br /><br />Do you support Collin’s calls, or do you reject them on the basis that the DL case is an extraordinary case and an infinitesimal sampling of the legal system?<br /><br />ChrisChris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-6138794884206287892009-08-31T15:45:05.069-04:002009-08-31T15:45:05.069-04:00Ken, Dallas, said...
RRH:
"Why aren’t they,...Ken, Dallas, said...<br /><br /><i>RRH:<br /><br />"Why aren’t they, at least, shunned?"<br /><br />Good question.<br /><br />8/28/09 11:31 PM</i><br /><br />Thanks, Ken. As you may have noticed, in the wake of the Lacrosse Hoax I have not advanced any ideas for drastic institutional changes in academia. In a way I wish others would follow, I do not have enough arrogance to think that I know enough about academia to speak competently on the subject. The responses that I have urged upon the academics here -- such as shunning the G88ers or commemorating the anniversaries of the date of the infamous ad or the exoneration of the Boys -- have all been very small bore in caliber: An individual professor can do any of them; it doesn't take a wholesale restructuring of the academy.<br /><br />It gets my dander up (in case you hadn't noticed) that academics take the reverse tact -- and they do so almost on command from the G88ers: They take one extraordinary case (or a infinitesimal number when compared with the totality) and suddenly they decide they are competent enough to recommend institutional-level reforms for the whole legal system.<br /><br /><i>"Change the rules of evidence!"<br /><br />"Change the standards of proof!"<br /><br />"Change the grounds for appeals!"<br /><br />"Change the application of habeas corpus jurisprudence!"</i><br /><br />It is, from my perspective, jaw-droppingly arrogant for them to behave in this way. It actually makes the actions of the G88ers more understandable, if so many professors with so little knowledge seem to think they are fit to make broad critiques of systems and institutions.<br /><br />In such a way, our friends in academia give us more cause for alarm than do our enemies. Meanwhile, I bet not a single one of them has given his students the day off from classes for one of the Lacrosse Hoax anniversaries.<br /><br />RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-64122608486176155522009-08-28T23:31:40.193-04:002009-08-28T23:31:40.193-04:00RRH:
"Why aren’t they, at least, shunned?&qu...RRH:<br /><br />"Why aren’t they, at least, shunned?"<br /><br />Good question.<br /><br />Ken<br />DallasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-3082132938869001482009-08-28T17:24:20.907-04:002009-08-28T17:24:20.907-04:00RRH,
It would not have occurred to me that anyone...RRH,<br /><br />It would not have occurred to me that anyone would dispute the innocence of Randall Dale Adams, as you appear to be doing. His story was the subject of the Errol Morris documentary, “The Thin Blue Line.” Nevertheless, I am interested in your reasons. Please don’t hesitate to contact me privately if you feel that this subject is off topic here.<br /><br />On the one hand, I think that your view of academia may be overly colored by the actions of the G88 and their sympathizers. Most academic departments with which I have been associated are filled with people who teach things such as, “The data are the data.” In other words they have their opinions and pet theories, but they let the experiment rule their thinking, not the other way around. On the other hand, my recent conversations with DukeDad and OneSpook have convinced me that there is more to say about academia and the Duke case. I recall Professor Steven Baldwin tell me some time ago with respect to his letter to the Duke Chronicle that academia had a problem. I hope to come out of retirement temporarily this weekend and post a modest article on my blog.<br /><br />The biggest resistance I face in discussing the Duke case with academics and other intelligent people is convincing them that there larger issues involved than three young men falsely accused. Among them is certainly the conduct of many academics at Duke, but I would still list the conduct of the DPD and media as other areas worthy of consideration. It is a strange coincidence that you should mention Professor Holloway. I had recently commented about her at the Duke Chronicle in a thread that was removed due to obscene language. The text below is slightly modified from what appeared there:<br /><br />Many of us have debunked your claims about the students, sometimes multiple times. Instead, let’s talk about Karla Holloway, professor of English and teacher of legal ethics. Here is a multiple choice question. In January of 2007, when the DA’s case was in tatters and President Broadhead invited Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty back to Duke, Professor Holloway,<br />A. said, “It must be a relief for our two seemingly innocent students to see the light at the end of the tunnel with respect to such serious charges. I am sure that they are eager to move forward.”<br />B. said, “Isn’t it horrible to imagine our students being at the mercy of apparent prosecutorial misconduct. I would like to teach our law students why it is wrong to withhold exculpatory evidence so that they never do it themselves.”<br />C. said that President Broadhead’s decision “is a clear use of corporate power, and a breach, I think, of ethical citizenship,” and resign from a committee in protest without bothering to explain what corporate power she was talking about.<br /><br />It is Professors Baker, Farrad, Holloway, Wells, and Wood, and their ilk who should be on the defensive, not the lacrosse players.<br /><br />ChrisChris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-47723086306094701892009-08-28T14:01:13.971-04:002009-08-28T14:01:13.971-04:00I'd like to add an unrelated anecdote to what ...I'd like to add an unrelated anecdote to what Anonymous said about Brodhead on 8/18 at 1:03 pm. In the summer of 2006 while the Duke lacrosse hoax was in full force, Brodhead, who owns a vacation home in Vermont, still found the time to threaten a lawsuit against the tiny hamlet where he has the house over a petty manner. He then told off a neighbor who reached out to him over the same petty manner and thus turned an entire village against him. My point being, in the summer of 2006, one would think he'd be trying to make and keep as many friends as he could. Looks like he was on a roll. His presidency at Duke reminds me of the Peter Principle, he has definitely risen to his level of incompetence. He should have stayed a dean at Yale.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-7905803038019512382009-08-28T10:54:53.098-04:002009-08-28T10:54:53.098-04:00Jim in San Diego said...
"If I read your ver...Jim in San Diego said...<br /><br /><i>"If I read your very articulate arguments over some time, your view is that full justice is served when an accused has had full notice and opportunity to be heard, and a judge or jury has made the factual determination of guilt. End of story.</i><br /><br />If that's what you think is "my view", then I cannot have been "articulate" enough. <br /><br />The bottom line is that I believe that "separation of powers" is the bedrock principle that undergirds our system of justice and liberty. We have rules -- ancient rules -- about where judicial and executive powers begin and end. In the case of judicial power, I am happy to repeat the view of Chief Justice Roberts: "If it is <i><b>not necessary</b></i> for a court <i><b>to rule</b></i> on a certain issue, then it is <i><b>necessary</b></i> for a court <i><b>not to rule</b></i> on that issue." <br /><br />There are many evil people who see that the way to impose tyranny on us is to blur those rules. They use very sympathetic cases (almost always twisting the facts) to make smart people like yourself believe that the rules must be changed -- that the different departments of government should be able to "reach into each other's pockets" to overcome some perceived injustice that is -- they promise you -- sure to occur.<br /><br />What the evildoers seek to convince you of is that the court must rule on everything under the sun or else something terrible will happen. For instance, if a court denies an innocent man's last appeal, they want to make you believe that his execution is inevitable. I'm going to type this slowly: They. Are. Lying. The executive branch and even the legislative branches can do their jobs -- within the ancient rules that exist -- and free that man. The legal frauds who tell you that only a court can decide life-or-death count on your sympathy and your ignorance of the rules of the system. Don't let them do it.<br /><br />RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-64278380213943546342009-08-28T10:34:37.724-04:002009-08-28T10:34:37.724-04:00[Continued from above]
”I have blogged several ti...[Continued from above]<br /><br /><i>”I have blogged several times on the misdeeds of the G88 and their ilk, and I agree that they are one of the more culpable groups.”</i><br /><br />Shouldn’t you wake up every day asking yourself, “What can I do today, however small, that will help to make Karla Holloway’s life a living hell?” What could that be? Well, how about contesting, every day, Holloway’s metanarrative of hulking white male beasts and virtuous black maidens that permeates academia and without which the Lacrosse Hoax could never have occurred?<br /><br /><i>” However, you have failed to convince me of your other point as well, that the spotlight should not be on the criminal justice system. As OneSpook has noted, ‘Saying that the justice system worked in the lax case is somewhat like saying the safety system worked in a fighter plane accident because the pilot was able to parachute to safety.’" </i><br /><br />As much as I admire OneSpook, his analogy is deeply flawed. To fix it, I would say that Nifong was an evil pilot who, only with the aid of a conspiracy of academics, kidnapped the Lacrosse Boys and took them on an airplane ride. The legal system was the air traffic controllers who used a tractor beam to force the plane to Earth, de-licensed the pilot and threw him into jail, and then forced the academic conspirators to give the Boys millions of dollars. How about that analogy?<br /><br />You may respond that, “Well, unfortunately academia doesn’t have the power to punish our miscreants the way the legal system does to its.” Really? How about shunning? When Pres. Clinton was found to have abused his office – in a way far less heinous than the G88 abused theirs -- the entire U.S. Supreme Court boycotted his State of the Union address and later disbarred him (without a hearing, I might add). What lawyers can’t understand is why academics can’t do that with the G88. Why don’t academics, say, refuse to appear at fora with G88 members? Why aren’t they, at least, shunned? <br /><br />As I’ve said before, if the legal system handled Nifong like the academic system handles the G88, by now Nifong would be the attorney general of North Carolina! If the academic system was like the legal system, by now Karla Holloway would never be allowed to darken the door of a classroom again. So, please get your own house in order before you try again to tell me how to clean mine.<br /><br />RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-74681886729716833152009-08-28T10:33:23.125-04:002009-08-28T10:33:23.125-04:00Prof. Chris Halkides said…
“RRH,
“Randall Dale Ad...Prof. Chris Halkides said…<br /><i>“RRH,<br /><br />“Randall Dale Adams, an obviously innocent man, came within two days of being executed for the murder of a Dallas police officer. Cameron Todd Willingham was executed by the State of Texas partly on the basis of forensic evidence, crazed glass, that is no longer considered evidence of arson at all. My recollection is that of the first 700 persons on death row after the moratorium on capital punishment was lifted, 600 were executed and 100 were released. 100 out of 700 is sobering number of close calls. I have no idea how your 1/1000 estimate was determined, but maybe you can shed some light on this.”</i><br /><br />I have only today learned that you are a college professor. I have to admit that when I learned that, a red film descended over my vision and the hair on the back of my neck stood straight up. I am no longer willing to try to explain a system to a man who believes, <i>inter alia</i>, that “released” means “innocent”. I’m sorry, but in the legal profession words have precise meanings. (Here I resist the desire to refer you to a definition of “precise”.) Apparently, in academia, words don’t mean a goddamned thing: “Black” could mean “black”, or it could mean “blue”, or “green”, or “plaid”, or “heavy”, or “new”. When George Orwell said (and I may be paraphrasing from memory), “There are some ideas so incredibly stupid that only an intellectual could believe in them,” I don’t think he had lawyers in mind. Academics complaining about the purity of the legal system now remind me of lepers that she treated complaining that Mother Teresa didn’t wash her hands all the time.<br /><br />(In fairness, I will say that lawyers, too, often say crazy things about other professions, like the President does on the medical profession – such as that doctors will choose treatments based on what’s best for their own pocketbooks, or that a doctor receives $50,000 for amputating a leg. It is for this reason that I have been careful not to call, as many others here have, for specific reforms of academia such as an end of tenure. I think the academics should clean their own house – unless, as it appears more and more to me, they are incapable of it.)<br /><br />RRH<br /><br />[Continued below due to space limitations]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-12999541272374898342009-08-27T11:02:20.021-04:002009-08-27T11:02:20.021-04:00RRH:
If you have read my posts on this blog over ...RRH:<br /><br />If you have read my posts on this blog over the past 18 months, every one of them signed, you will know my attitude toward the G88 and their ilk.<br /><br />My opinions of them, and the danger they pose to my children and grandchildren, are formed within the larger issue of fundamental justice for all.<br /><br />If I read your very articulate arguments over some time, your view is that full justice is served when an accused has had full notice and opportunity to be heard, and a judge or jury has made the factual determination of guilt. End of story.<br /><br />I no longer agree this is the whole story. I have seen too many judges pretend to believe lying police officers, too many juries make decisions on whether they "like" someone, or their attorneys!<br /><br />We therefore differ in the level of formality we need to be satisfied with justice. You are satisfied with justice if I cannot "name" one of the innocent men who has been executed by authority. <br /><br />I am NOT satisfied, knowing and proving statistically these executions have happened, and will happen in the future.<br /><br />So we have to leave it there.<br /><br />Jim PetersonJim in San Diegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07032079086884503680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-14375326621500845162009-08-27T10:11:17.493-04:002009-08-27T10:11:17.493-04:00RRH,
Randall Dale Adams, an obviously innocent ma...RRH,<br /><br />Randall Dale Adams, an obviously innocent man, came within two days of being executed for the murder of a Dallas police officer. Cameron Todd Willingham was executed by the State of Texas partly on the basis of forensic evidence, crazed glass, that is no longer considered evidence of arson at all. My recollection is that of the first 700 persons on death row after the moratorium on capital punishment was lifted, 600 were executed and 100 were released. 100 out of 700 is sobering number of close calls. I have no idea how your 1/1000 estimate was determined, but maybe you can shed some light on this.<br /><br />I have blogged several times on the misdeeds of the G88 and their ilk, and I agree that they are one of the more culpable groups. However, you have failed to convince me of your other point as well, that the spotlight should not be on the criminal justice system. As OneSpook has noted, "Saying that the justice system worked in the lax case is somewhat like saying the safety system worked in a fighter plane accident because the pilot was able to parachute to safety." I would add the following thought. Suppose that Reade Seligman’s family friend had not been able to loan the family $400,000 for Reade’s bail. Reade would have spent a year in jail for a crime that the laws of chemistry and physics indicate he did not commit. The DNA evidence in the DL case was especially powerful because Crystal was taken into custody shortly after the incident on North Buchanan.<br /><br />ChrisChris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-66022929436375649132009-08-26T10:49:54.618-04:002009-08-26T10:49:54.618-04:00Jim in San Diego said...
"RRH, at 9:36, ...Jim in San Diego said... <br /><br /><i>"RRH, at 9:36, 'there is no way that an undisputably innocent man can be executed in the United States'.<br /><br />"Sorry, again.<br /><br />"Actually, it happens fairly regularly."</i><br /><br />Name one. (Actually, I meant "a man who was known to be innocent at the time of his execution", but let's go with your definition.)<br /><br /><i>"We know this on at least a statistical basis."</i><br /><br />Ohhhh. So you can't name one, but you "just know" it's happened.<br /><br /><i>"The Innocence Project has won exoneration for seventeen undisputably innocent men who were once on death row."</i><br /><br />I cannot say that I have reviewed all of TIP's "exonerations", but of the ones I have, I would say that most of them are not "exonerations" at all: TIP did not prove the convict's innocence, but instead only cast enough doubt on the case to have the sentence commuted or a pardon granted. <br /><br /><i>"The grounds for exoneration have been matches (or mismatches) of a DNA fingerprint left at the scene of the crime for which the innocent man was convicted."</i><br /><br />Except in rare cases, such as rape. DNA can not prove innocence, only guilt (except in California; see, e.g., what Barry Scheck did with the DNA evidence in his big trial there). Except in rape and similar cases, DNA does not and cannot exclude suspects; it can only include them. <br /><br />For instance, if you came to my house and killed me but left no DNA, would that "prove your innocence"? Maybe to TIP and weak-minded souls it would. What if you left no physical evidence whatsoever: Would that "prove your innocence"? What if witnesses to the crime changed their testimonies 15 years later -- Would that "prove your innocence"?<br /><br />My point is that physical evidence makes it easy to prove guilt (except in California) while a mere lack of physical evidence does not prove innocence. That's why the burden of proof for a guilty verdict is "certainty beyond a reasonable doubt" (except in California, where it's "beyond all possible doubt"). A defendant to be acquitted (notice I didn't say innocent) needs to merely raise <b><i>some</i></b> reasonable doubt that he is guilty. This is such a light burden that it is very, very rare for a defendant to be wrongly convicted. <br /><br />I would estimate the incidence of a wrongful conviction resulting in prison time to be less than 1 in 1,000 cases. In fact, now that I recall, I think the TIP research itself shows that I am overestimating the incidence.<br /><br />My larger point is: The 88ists want to take the spotlight off themselves and put it on the American justice system. In the Lacrosse case, it was the American justice system that vindicated those the 88ists sought to condemn. Can't you see the difference? I am always amazed why some people in this forum -- this forum in particular!! --continue to harp on the (mostly imagined) failings of the American justice system when their energy is far better and justifiably spent on the failings of the American academic system.<br /><br />RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-75654815403619300702009-08-25T18:41:05.676-04:002009-08-25T18:41:05.676-04:00RRH, at 9:36, "there is no way that an undisp...RRH, at 9:36, "there is no way that an undisputably innocent man can be executed in the United States".<br /><br />Sorry, again.<br /><br />Actually, it happens fairly regularly. We know this on at least a statistical basis.<br /><br />The Innocence Project has won exoneration for seventeen undisputably innocent men who were once on death row.<br /><br />The grounds for exoneration have been matches (or mismatches) of a DNA fingerprint left at the scene of the crime for which the innocent man was convicted.<br /><br />However, only a fraction of crimes leave a DNA fingerprint sufficient to use to prove innocence, later.<br /><br />Therefore, unless every crime of which an innocent man has been sentenced to death left a sufficient DNA fingerprint; and, unless we have found and exonerated every single such person;<br /><br />Then, it is statistically certain that undisputably innocent men have been executed. And, will continue to be executed in the future.<br /><br />This moral catastrophe ought to temper the legal opinions of someone in the position of Justice Scalia. Apparently, it does not.<br /><br />Jim PetersonJim in San Diegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07032079086884503680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-40238664558997120622009-08-25T10:13:05.266-04:002009-08-25T10:13:05.266-04:00Ken of Dallas said, of my earlier comment...
&quo...Ken of Dallas said, of my earlier comment...<br /><br /><i>"RRH:<br /><br />"A welcome moment of clarity. Well said."</i><br /><br />Jim Peterson of San Diego (Calif.), had a much different view, saying, in part...<br /><br /><i>"RRH: 'the federal Constitution does not prohibit the conviction (or execution) of an innocent man'.<br /><br />Sorry. It is so obvious, so central to the morality of the law, that government should not execute innocent people, the writers of the Constitution could not possibly have believed such an obvious truth needed to be put in writing. Thus, for Justice Scalia to justify a judicial decision that is fundamentally wrong and immoral by blaming it on the absence of such a specific prohibition in writing teeters on insanity. He is making a legalistic argument (in the worst sense)of the 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' kind, when the issue is one of mortal equity."</i><br /><br />"Mortal equity" -- now there is something I hadn't heard of. It must be a California thing. Btw, while we'e on the subject, it's not "Article IX" of the Constitution but "Amendment IX" which contains the language you cite. Also, there's an easy way to remember the difference between "being hung" and "being hanged": The old saying goes, "Horses are hung; men are hanged." (Sometimes, depending on the audience, I change this to "Pictures are hung....").<br /><br />In Texas, we sing songs about the thrill of hanging "bad boys": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psqTDC7g9U4 (Enjoy the Cajun dancing girls.) Some people know about the Texan comedian Ron White, but many do not know that he is also one of my philosophical and lifestyle mentors. Here's his explanation of the death penalty in Texas: http://comedians.comedycentral.com/ron-white/videos/ron-white---death-penalty<br /><br />Now, as for the diametrically opposed views of Texan Ken and Californian Jim -- who seems to think that the courts exist to dry every tear and wipe every nose: Which justice system would America do better to emulate, Texas' or California's? Jim seems to esteem the one that produced the OJ trial and is in the process of loosing tens of thousands convicts on law-abiding Californians.<br /><br />Well, one piece of good news, Jim: If you ever follow so many of your fellow Californians in moving to Texas, you will probably be exempt from jury duty. <br /><br />RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-54522414162270585492009-08-25T09:36:57.527-04:002009-08-25T09:36:57.527-04:00The inestimable MOO! Gregory says,
"I would...The inestimable MOO! Gregory says, <br /><br /><i>"I would suggest that the Constitution does protect an innocent individual from death by state execution. If not by the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, then surely based on the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Unless, of course, one was to consider the act of a government putting to death an innocent person neither cruel nor unusual."</i><br /><br />That's an interesting argument -- especially about the 8th Amendment -- but isn't it superfluous? I mean, can you imagine any circumstances in which <b><i>an undeniably innocent man would be executed?</i></b> One way or another, any such execution would be stayed. Even George W. Bush, who as Texas governor wasn't known to stay many executions, stayed the execution of a confessed serial killer where it was clear that the killer (who was later executed for other crimes) had falsely confessed to that particular murder.<br /><br />Because there is no chance that an indisputibly innocent man can be executed in the United States, your concern and suggested extraordinary application of Federal law are unwarranted.<br /><br />(I still love the way you write.)<br /><br />RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-26993900285849653852009-08-25T09:24:46.289-04:002009-08-25T09:24:46.289-04:00[Continued from above]
So, what are Davis’ remain...[Continued from above]<br /><br />So, what are Davis’ remaining avenues of relief? If his claim, as it is, is that the evidence against him was tainted by fraud, then he should bring his case to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles: http://pap.georgia.gov/01/home/0,2167,683715,00.html The Board’s website describes its mission thusly:<br /><br /><i>”The State Board of Pardons and Paroles was established by the ratification of a constitutional amendment in August 1943. The Board is a part of the executive branch of Georgia's government, authorized to grant paroles, pardons, reprieves, remissions, commutations, and to restore civil and political rights.”</i><br /><br />For some reason, Scheck does not tell us if Davis has availed himself of this avenue of relief. <br /><br />What Scheck wants instead is, essentially, a new trial 18 years after the first one. Apparently, however, in Scheck’s version, only the defense will be allowed to present its case. Assume for a moment that while in the last 18 years the defense has discovered some exculpatory evidence, there has also been discovered new <i><b>inculpatory</b></i> evidence. In fact, Scheck seems to suggest there <b><i>is</i></b> new inculpatory evidence when he says, “There <i><b>was</b></i> no physical evidence linking [Davis] to the crime.” Scheck’s careful use of the past tense here, to a lawyer’s way of reading, suggests that there <b><i>is now</i></b> some physical evidence linking Davis to the crime. Will this new <i><b>inculpatory</b></i> evidence, if any, be heard in Scheck’s specially invented “new trial”? Scheck doesn’t say.<br /><br />Moreover, Scheck in his haste to rewrite Georgia law does not tell us what the standard of proof should be in this new-fangled judges-only hearing. At the first trial, the prosecution had to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Under current Georgia law, the defendant seeking this extraordinary relief based on witness recantation must, in effect, bear the same “no reasonable doubt” burden of proof. (Scheck denounces the “purest fabrication” rule for considering recantation evidence. In effect, Scheck is saying that the witnesses who were found credible in the first trial should be found credible in his specially created new trial – even when they are saying opposite things!) So what should be the standard of proof? Again, Scheck doesn’t say.<br /><br />Based on Scheck’s argument in the Huff Po, if I were on the Georgia Supreme Court, I would tell Mr. Scheck to take a hike. I would also give him the phone number for the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. If he wants looser evidentiary rules and a standard of review less respectful of jury verdicts, that’s the proper forum.<br /><br />RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-24450847686516436452009-08-25T09:20:10.580-04:002009-08-25T09:20:10.580-04:00halides1 said at 8/20/09 9:44 AM...
”RRH,
What i...halides1 said at 8/20/09 9:44 AM... <br /><i>”RRH,<br /><br />What initially puzzled me was your statement at 5:52 PM "First, someone will defend Lombard: It will be an attorney." At the time it sounded to me as if you might be displeased that any lawyer would defend Mr. Lombard, but your more recent comments imply that you do not.”</i><br /><br />You’re final judgment is correct: I am not in the least displeased that Lombard will be defended by an attorney. Everyone is entitled to bring an attorney who will defend them to the best of his ability. In that vein, I think of all OJ’s high-priced lawyers, Barry Scheck was the best. But I have to wonder: Do the ghosts of Nicole and Ron still come to him in his dreams?<br /><br /><i>”On the subject of the Troy Davis case, Bar[r]y Scheck has written a column in which he criticizes Georgia appeals procedure for a Catch-22 rule that makes getting a hearing based on a witness recanting either impossible or irrelevant (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-scheck/troubling-questions-surro_b_137514.html). If the appeals procedure were flawed, how can this be due process?”</i><br /><br />I have read the piece you cite by Scheck in the Huffington Post. While I do not know much of the facts of the Troy Davis case, I do know some things that most of Scheck’s readers do not: The normal rules of trial and appellate procedures.<br /><br />Normally, when a defendant is convicted, he will make, first, a motion to the trial judge for a new trial. (Here I am skipping over “motions for a directed verdict” and “motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict”, which are other, but extraordinary, ways of short-circuiting a guilty verdict.) One of the grounds for such a motion is “insufficiency of the evidence”. If the motion is granted, a new trial with a new jury is held. If the motion is denied, the defendant can appeal his conviction to higher courts – and again, one of the grounds for reversing the conviction is “insufficiency of the evidence”. If he loses his appeals, then the justice system is – barring an extraordinary event – forever barred from re-considering the conviction on evidentiary grounds, though it could still grant relief from the conviction on other grounds. The reason for this rule is that the legal system is loath to (my words) “let the judges squeeze their fat asses into the jury box”. In American law, jurors are considered the best judges of both the facts and the credibility of witnesses. <br /><br />The Davis trial took place 18 years ago. Under Georgia law, assuming it is as Scheck describes, the only way for the courts to now reconsider the evidence of the case is a prerequisite showing of the impossibility of the evidence presented at trial -- the "purest fabrication" rule. The example Scheck gives is where a witness claims to have been an accomplice but it is later indisputably shown that, at the time of the crime, he was incarcerated in another county. In this, Georgia law follows an American tradition of long-standing.<br /><br />RRH<br />[Continued below due to length limitations]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-2958088955880454452009-08-23T23:49:28.974-04:002009-08-23T23:49:28.974-04:00For the Sociology of Caribbean Food final examinat...For the Sociology of Caribbean Food final examination, you have to fill up blue books about these two very important questions:<br /><br />1. Where do you put the lime? <br /><br />And, <br /><br />2. Through empirical investigation and critical thinking, how did the people of the Caribbean react to having put their lime in the coconut?<br /><br />********************<br /><br />Speaking of Jeralyn Merritt, I had a post on the old Talkleft Forum comparing the evidence in the Durham fake rape with the evidence in one of the Salem Witch Trials, the trial of Tom Robinson in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and the actual rape perpetrated by Michael Earl Sexton, who was defended on appeal by Dr. Irving Joyner. It is located <a href="http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php?topic=1127.msg53750#msg53750" rel="nofollow">here.</a> Needless to say, the amount of evidence trumpeted by Nifong fell well short of those famous hoaxes and the actual rape that Joyner thought was such an injustice. <br /><br />The Mangum evidence would fall woefully short of the hoaxed evidence in the daycare abuse cases as well. There are, however, some similarities. In the case cited by Professor Johnson, there was prejudice against the defendant like there was prejudice against the "elite" "jocks" in the Mangum Hoax. Also, both cases were built on at least one mass-fallacy. In the Mangum case, it was that women never lie about rape. In the daycare cases, it was that children never lie about crimes. MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-16959079239782922092009-08-23T08:55:47.151-04:002009-08-23T08:55:47.151-04:00In an article in Sunday's(8/23) Charlotte Obse...In an article in Sunday's(8/23) Charlotte Observer about Duke Quarterback, Thaddeus Lewis, the article's author, Luke DeCock, reports that Lewis "managed to schedule a light course load " during this fall semester. <br /><br />"He is taking only two courses, a theater course and a sociology course about Carribean food, which taken together can be seen as a sign that Lewis' education is largely complete."<br /><br />Two courses, six(6) credit hours? The Sociology of Carribean food?<br /><br />You just cannot make this stuff up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76996718232305896212009-08-23T01:50:15.191-04:002009-08-23T01:50:15.191-04:00If the executive branch fails, it can, unlike the ...<i>If the executive branch fails, it can, unlike the judicial branch, be punished at the polls.</i><br /><br />Excellent. Thus the US can continue to kill people it knows to be innocent whilst we wait for the next election day.gwallannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-69026071159944619912009-08-22T17:20:36.065-04:002009-08-22T17:20:36.065-04:00For #1 the name is actually Radley, not RodneyFor #1 the name is actually Radley, not RodneyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-10229152262000494072009-08-22T16:45:13.519-04:002009-08-22T16:45:13.519-04:00School rankings. Perhaps you don't get what yo...School rankings. Perhaps you don't get what you pay for after all.<br />North of DetroitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-32070691132247156922009-08-21T13:44:40.324-04:002009-08-21T13:44:40.324-04:00On rankings of undergraduate schools:
A friend te...On rankings of undergraduate schools:<br /><br />A friend teaches at one of the California community colleges (2 yr associate degree). Successful graduates are guaranteed entry into the junior year at a CA state college.<br /><br />Since these are not research institutions, the faculty has a full teaching load. Because tuition is much less than state 4 yr colleges, there has been a migration of students to do their first 2 years at community college. <br /><br />Besides cost savings, in many cases the instruction is considerably better, as classes are taught by full time instructors (who have PhD's), rather than grad students who lack teaching competency, and in many cases, command of English.<br /><br />The "quality" of the top tier schools is seen after enduring 2 1/2 years of 'make work' teaching of grad students working for their stipends.a Nice NJ Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05776159775859690321noreply@blogger.com