tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post6014138497263267739..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Court of Criminal Appeals: Trial court abused discretion by disallowing eyewitness ID expertGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-76074209317299466302011-10-07T19:20:25.804-05:002011-10-07T19:20:25.804-05:00You are like RoboCop going after every aspect of t...You are like RoboCop going after every aspect of the justice, law enforcement and correctional systems. These systems must be attacked daily in order to show that criminals should really be released. These systems must all be discredited or undermined.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-67559994501684606632011-10-06T08:23:54.620-05:002011-10-06T08:23:54.620-05:00A different question with eyewitness id will be ta...A different question with eyewitness id will be taken up by the Supreme Court - outside ID. Even though a different issue, just the fact it will be addressed by the court seems to me the whole question is being brought to the public. More importantly IMO is the recent decisions by the CCA. Are we seeing a change on this court finally? We can only hope.<br /><br />Oh, failed to wish you a happy birthday in another post. I too found grits after becoming personally concerned with criminal justice. Before it was a academic interest but thanks to Grits it's become a lifeline.Texas Mavericknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-2733375480788025052011-10-06T08:17:38.590-05:002011-10-06T08:17:38.590-05:00Ummm...what was the other evidence of guilt in thi...Ummm...what was the other evidence of guilt in this case? Might that be an important consideration in a harmless error analysis?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-74683992975668948542011-10-05T23:44:49.130-05:002011-10-05T23:44:49.130-05:00the problem here is they first showed the witness ...the problem here is they first showed the witness a set of photo's where this person's photo was. they didnt' get an id! then later on they had a physical lineup with him in it. he then OF COURSE recognzied the guy! of course we have no way to know if he recognzied him from the attack! which the court should have realized from the FACT he didnt' pick him out of the photo array. Or he just recognized him as being ONE of the PHOTO'S he'd alrady seen.<br /><br />whole lot of reasonable doubt there and last last time i looked our constution requires a NOT GUILTY verdict if they CANNOT convict BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!<br /><br />so ANY reasonable doubt should result in a NOT GULTIY verdict!rodsmithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-50633446184753892442011-10-05T18:53:42.041-05:002011-10-05T18:53:42.041-05:00If they can't identify him, then it must be a ...If they can't identify him, then it must be a stranger committing the crime. If it was your brother or cousin or husband then you should be able to identify the bastard. Seems like you could pick your brother out of a lineup.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-35993716308153400842011-10-05T17:53:08.368-05:002011-10-05T17:53:08.368-05:00what's just sad is this!
"The appellate ...what's just sad is this!<br /><br />"The appellate court's ruling was reversed and the opinion was sent back to them for a harm analysis"<br /><br />Whole thing should have been automaticly canned. Since for all anyone knows all he was testifying too was "That was the guy in the photo's!" certainly a hell of a lot of reasonable doubt there!rodsmithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-25094782513870394432011-10-05T17:27:31.667-05:002011-10-05T17:27:31.667-05:00That's been pretty widely reported, Swede, but...That's been pretty widely reported, Swede, but I agree it has yet to seep into the public consciousness. Every incremental step like this one certainly helps, though.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-62584516544791981822011-10-05T17:17:52.466-05:002011-10-05T17:17:52.466-05:00"Nationwide, 190 of the first 250 DNA exonera..."Nationwide, 190 of the first 250 DNA exonerations involved eyewitnesses who were wrong. " Pretty damning statement there. Now how do we go about publicizing that fact and get the networks and TV stations and major newspapers to report that so it becomes common knowledge?Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00273102025044265497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-11320888643025011492011-10-05T15:50:09.316-05:002011-10-05T15:50:09.316-05:00And Keller didn't even dissent.
I got around ...And Keller didn't even dissent.<br /><br />I got around to reading New Jersey v. Henderson today and it's an impressive piece of work, although I bit the remedy still fairly weak. Especially their insistance that it only apply prospectively.Soronel Haetirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11639906179427371695noreply@blogger.com