• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Disturbing article about the power of the prosecution in US justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10thompson.html?

I SPENT 18 years in prison for robbery and murder, 14 of them on death row. I’ve been free since 2003, exonerated after evidence covered up by prosecutors surfaced just weeks before my execution date. Those prosecutors were never punished. Last month, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 to overturn a case I’d won against them and the district attorney who oversaw my case, ruling that they were not liable for the failure to turn over that evidence — which included proof that blood at the robbery scene wasn’t mine.

Because of that, prosecutors are free to do the same thing to someone else today.

I was arrested in January 1985 in New Orleans. I remember the police coming to my grandmother’s house — we all knew it was the cops because of how hard they banged on the door before kicking it in. My grandmother and my mom were there, along with my little brother and sister, my two sons — John Jr., 4, and Dedric, 6 — my girlfriend and me. The officers had guns drawn and were yelling. I guess they thought they were coming for a murderer. All the children were scared and crying. I was 22.

They took me to the homicide division, and played a cassette tape on which a man I knew named Kevin Freeman accused me of shooting a man. He had also been arrested as a suspect in the murder. A few weeks earlier he had sold me a ring and a gun; it turned out that the ring belonged to the victim and the gun was the murder weapon.

My picture was on the news, and a man called in to report that I looked like someone who had recently tried to rob his children. Suddenly I was accused of that crime, too. I was tried for the robbery first. My lawyers never knew there was blood evidence at the scene, and I was convicted based on the victims’ identification.

After that, my lawyers thought it was best if I didn’t testify at the murder trial. So I never defended myself, or got to explain that I got the ring and the gun from Kevin Freeman. And now that I officially had a history of violent crime because of the robbery conviction, the prosecutors used it to get the death penalty.

I remember the judge telling the courtroom the number of volts of electricity they would put into my body. If the first attempt didn’t kill me, he said, they’d put more volts in.

On Sept. 1, 1987, I arrived on death row in the Louisiana State Penitentiary — the infamous Angola prison. I was put in a dead man’s cell. His things were still there; he had been executed only a few days before. That past summer they had executed eight men at Angola. I received my first execution date right before I arrived. I would end up knowing 12 men who were executed there.

Over the years, I was given six execution dates, but all of them were delayed until finally my appeals were exhausted. The seventh — and last — date was set for May 20, 1999. My lawyers had been with me for 11 years by then; they flew in from Philadelphia to give me the news. They didn’t want me to hear it from the prison officials. They said it would take a miracle to avoid this execution. I told them it was fine — I was innocent, but it was time to give up.

But then I remembered something about May 20. I had just finished reading a letter from my younger son about how he wanted to go on his senior class trip. I’d been thinking about how I could find a way to pay for it by selling my typewriter and radio. “Oh, no, hold on,” I said, “that’s the day before John Jr. is graduating from high school.” I begged them to get it delayed; I knew it would hurt him.

To make things worse, the next day, when John Jr. was at school, his teacher read the whole class an article from the newspaper about my execution. She didn’t know I was John Jr.’s dad; she was just trying to teach them a lesson about making bad choices. So he learned that his father was going to be killed from his teacher, reading the newspaper aloud. I panicked. I needed to talk to him, reassure him.

Amazingly, I got a miracle. The same day that my lawyers visited, an investigator they had hired to look through the evidence one last time found, on some forgotten microfiche, a report sent to the prosecutors on the blood type of the perpetrator of the armed robbery. It didn’t match mine; the report, hidden for 15 years, had never been turned over to my lawyers. The investigator later found the names of witnesses and police reports from the murder case that hadn’t been turned over either.

As a result, the armed robbery conviction was thrown out in 1999, and I was taken off death row. Then, in 2002, my murder conviction was thrown out. At a retrial the following year, the jury took only 35 minutes to acquit me.

The prosecutors involved in my two cases, from the office of the Orleans Parish district attorney, Harry Connick Sr., helped to cover up 10 separate pieces of evidence. And most of them are still able to practice law today.

Why weren’t they punished for what they did? When the hidden evidence first surfaced, Mr. Connick announced that his office would hold a grand jury investigation. But once it became clear how many people had been involved, he called it off.

In 2005, I sued the prosecutors and the district attorney’s office for what they did to me. The jurors heard testimony from the special prosecutor who had been assigned by Mr. Connick’s office to the canceled investigation, who told them, “We should have indicted these guys, but they didn’t and it was wrong.” The jury awarded me $14 million in damages — $1 million for every year on death row — which would have been paid by the district attorney’s office. That jury verdict is what the Supreme Court has just overturned.

I don’t care about the money. I just want to know why the prosecutors who hid evidence, sent me to prison for something I didn’t do and nearly had me killed are not in jail themselves. There were no ethics charges against them, no criminal charges, no one was fired and now, according to the Supreme Court, no one can be sued.


Worst of all, I wasn’t the only person they played dirty with. Of the six men one of my prosecutors got sentenced to death, five eventually had their convictions reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct. Because we were sentenced to death, the courts had to appoint us lawyers to fight our appeals. I was lucky, and got lawyers who went to extraordinary lengths. But there are more than 4,000 people serving life without parole in Louisiana, almost none of whom have lawyers after their convictions are final. Someone needs to look at those cases to see how many others might be innocent.

If a private investigator hired by a generous law firm hadn’t found the blood evidence, I’d be dead today. No doubt about it.

A crime was definitely committed in this case, but not by me.

And a wiki article regarding the incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connick_v._Thompson

So uh, what the hell is up with Scalia and Thomas?
 

markot

Banned
Udderly ridiculous.

The US has to stop electing prosecutors and judges, its silly. It breeds this kind of behaviour that makes justice lose out to 'winning' and they forget that their first duty is to the court and the law, and not their case or client.
 

DiscoJer

Member
This sort of thing isn't new though. The guy that created Perry Mason founded an organization called The Court of Last Resort, that basically looked at false convictions, especially ones with police/prosecutorial corruption.
 

Sophia

Member
I remember the judge telling the courtroom the number of volts of electricity they would put into my body. If the first attempt didn’t kill me, he said, they’d put more volts in.

What the fuck? That's goddamn wrong no matter what crime was committed....
 

Neki

Member
I don't even get how this is legal, who is responsible for not giving the evidence that would prove him innocent then? :O
 
I just lost whatever respect I had for the Supreme Court. How did they rule that the prosecutor wasn't liable for that shit??
 
Ultimoo said:
I don't even get how that is legal, who is responsible for not giving the evidence that would prove him innocent? :O

Conviction rates, the money made by the legal system and prisons are more important than justice and keep innocents out of prison. Especially if they're of a minority.
 

Sophia

Member
Nard Bagman said:
I just lost whatever respect I had for the Supreme Court. How did they rule that the prosecutor wasn't liable for that shit??
markot said:
Udderly ridiculous.

The US has to stop electing prosecutors and judges, its silly. It breeds this kind of behaviour that makes justice lose out to 'winning' and they forget that their first duty is to the court and the law, and not their case or client.

makrot basically summed it up. It'd mean admitting that they're wrong. =P
 

squicken

Member
Prosecutors definitely should face some sort of personal responsibility and liability. But I agree with the court that the tax payers of New Orleans shouldn't have to foot the bill for their misconduct.
 
This is part of what I feel is wrong about our justice system. Some prosecutors are only out to get wins no matter the cost, especially if it gives them a political advantage.

Supreme Court made a really bad decision in this case, I can only see it getting worse.
 

markot

Banned
squicken said:
Prosecutors definitely should face some sort of personal responsibility and liability. But I agree with the court that the tax payers of New Orleans shouldn't have to foot the bill for their misconduct.
The state of New Orleans employed the man, and they locked him up for 14 years.
 
Why did I just knew when I read New Orleans and Prosecutorial Misconduct that the person would be black

This is disgusting. The conservative majority not willing to see that a wrong was done on an innocent man.

This is also not surprising, DOJ just last month issued a scathing report for the New Orleans PD: http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php?viewStory=4021

Their independent analysis on the patterns and practices of the NOPD shows an agency mired in racial profiling, violence, and abuse of police power-operating with very little community outreach, a critical component in the fight against crime.

Dealing with discriminatory policing practices, the DOJ evaluators explained, "NOPD has failed to take sufficient steps to detect, prevent, or address bias-based profiling and other forms of discriminatory policing on the basis of race, ethnicity, or LGBT status, despite widespread concern and troubling racial disparities in arrest rates and other data."

"During our investigation, many members of the community - particularly African Americans, ethnic minorities, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ("LGBT") community - re­ported that the Department subjects them to harassment and disrespectful treatment, and unfairly targets them for stops, searches, and arrests. Many members of NOPD echoed these concerns."

I mean, that was the police in 2009, this guy was arrested in 1985. I can just imagine how things were back then.
 

Soule

Member
markot said:
Udderly ridiculous.
Utterly*

http://www.slate.com/id/2290036/pagenum/all/#p2
Both parties to this case have long agreed that an injustice had been done. Connick himself conceded that there had been a Brady violation, yet Scalia finds none. Everyone else concedes that egregious mistakes were made. Scalia struggles to rehabilitate them all.

This really floored me. I can only hope that the system is more just in my own country.
 

D-Fens

Member
This actually happens much more frequently than people realize. Most of the time it's not with 14-year-old death row cases, but even a couple of years in prison can shake an innocent man's life for a long time.

Also, another thing people don't realize is that even if a man is charged with crimes he did not commit but wins the trial, the damages done to his life are almost always very serious (thousands and thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees, lost jobs, defamation of character, time spent arrested, etc.).

It really is disgusting how the judicial system works and how corrupted it can be. Guilty until proven innocent.
 

jaxword

Member
I think there's a lot more to this case than we're getting.

It strongly sounds like it was a racially motivated arrest, for sure.

Dude had 2 kids already at 16 and 18. I get the feeling he wasn't much for long-term planning or thinking at the time. Buying an random, obviously unregistered gun likely didn't help his case either. I can see how the prosecutors probably didn't need to do much to paint him as a dangerous member of society.

I'd wager they didn't forge evidence so much as lead the jury on with smaller to larger offenses.
 

numble

Member
jaxword said:
I think there's a lot more to this case than we're getting.

It strongly sounds like it was a racially motivated arrest, for sure.

Dude had 2 kids already at 16 and 18. I get the feeling he wasn't much for long-term planning or thinking at the time. Buying an random, obviously unregistered gun likely didn't help his case either. I can see how the prosecutors probably didn't need to do much to paint him as a dangerous member of society.

I'd wager they didn't forge evidence so much as lead the jury on with smaller to larger offenses.
The prosecutor admitted there was a Brady violation.
 
The prosecution withheld evidence to the defense obtained during the investigation. This in and of itself is illegal, to say nothing of unethical.
 
jaxword said:
I'd wager they didn't forge evidence so much as lead the jury on with smaller to larger offenses.

The issue isn't that they forged evidence though, it's that they deliberately withheld evidence that basically proved his innocence. If the defense had been given that evidence then he would most likely have never been convicted
 

jaxword

Member
MooseKnuckles said:
The issue isn't that they forged evidence though, it's that they deliberately withheld evidence that basically proved his innocence. If the defense had been given that evidence then he would most likely have never been convicted

Yeah, no argument there. I think a key point was that he was never allowed to defend himself or be aware of how he was being prosecuted/defended until already convicted. So there may have been all sorts of untruthful works being done that he (and we) will never learn about.
 
Marrshu said:
What the fuck? That's goddamn wrong no matter what crime was committed....

Actually it's the right thing to do. If the jury is going to be responsible for sentencing someone to death it's important that they fully understand what that entails.
 

Jangocube

Banned
"If a private investigator hired by a generous law firm hadn’t found the blood evidence, I’d be dead today. No doubt about it."

Daaaaaaaaamn.

Very sad story and it just goes to show you how incompetent our government has become.
 

leroidys

Member
Jangocube said:
"If a private investigator hired by a generous law firm hadn’t found the blood evidence, I’d be dead today. No doubt about it."

Daaaaaaaaamn.

Very sad story and it just goes to show you how incompetent our government has become.

This happened 26 years ago dawg
 

Dead Man

Member
Yeah, I think Markot has the right of it when he blames much of the problem on electing prosecutors and judges. Those IMPLEMENTING the law should be apolitical in their work. Otherwise everything gets fucked, like this poor fucking guy did.
 
This is fucking disgusting. Our justice system is so beyond fucked, and stories like this just exemplify the fact. Fuck the Supreme Court for having the balls to deny this man justice and reparation for the unbelievable suffering he went through.

It must drive a man mad to be convicted of murder when he's innocent. Makes me ashamed to call the United States my home when we treat our own worse than animals. I hope somebody makes this right.
 

speedpop

Has problems recognising girls
Really no words outside of stating the typical emotions invoked from reading that passage of text.

It sickens me to think of how many other cases have been hamfisted through like this simply for numbers and the usual bureaucratical crap. So much for the term "a court of law."
 

Ushojax

Should probably not trust the 7-11 security cameras quite so much
phoenix_wright_ace_attorney_conceptart_D3xCU-1.jpg


It's frightening to think that people like this actually exist.
 

ArjanN

Member
Even though this was pretty disgusting corrupt behaviour, I have to say it's probably never a good idea to buy a ring and a gun from someone.

'Psst! Hey mister! Want to buy this ring and a gun? No? How this rolex and a knife? Necklace and an axe?"
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
This case needs a bit of perspective.

The Supreme Court did NOT say that Thompson hadn't been very badly treated. What they DID say was the the DA's office was not liable in respect of inadequacy of training.

He sued the wrong guy for the wrong thing. They've already conceded their error.

There's plenty of other people he could have sued for different things, and though he's said it isn't about the money, money is the only reason for bringing this particular case, which was not particularly well-founded in the first place.

Because, as the Supreme COurt recognised - this isn't an inadequacy-of-training thing. It's lots of different things, but it isn't that.

I think Thompson has been misguided by his own lawyers in bring this case and although it raises all sorts of worrisome issues on the facts, I don't see that there is anything particularly wrong or bad in the Supreme Court's decision.
 

numble

Member
phisheep said:
This case needs a bit of perspective.

The Supreme Court did NOT say that Thompson hadn't been very badly treated. What they DID say was the the DA's office was not liable in respect of inadequacy of training.

He sued the wrong guy for the wrong thing. They've already conceded their error.

There's plenty of other people he could have sued for different things, and though he's said it isn't about the money, money is the only reason for bringing this particular case, which was not particularly well-founded in the first place.

Because, as the Supreme COurt recognised - this isn't an inadequacy-of-training thing. It's lots of different things, but it isn't that.

I think Thompson has been misguided by his own lawyers in bring this case and although it raises all sorts of worrisome issues on the facts, I don't see that there is anything particularly wrong or bad in the Supreme Court's decision.
They recognized in Canton that a "single incident" can invoke §1983 liability, now they're narrowing that idea because they think training prosecutors not to hide exculpatory evidence is not as important as training police officers in how to use deadly force. But here, hiding exculpatory evidence was equivalent to using deadly force.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom