tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post979155039063409063..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: When does the adversarial system commence?Gritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-75670088904592895252008-04-07T10:15:00.000-05:002008-04-07T10:15:00.000-05:00I must agree with all of the above comments, espec...I must agree with all of the above comments, especially after what I have personally witnessed and experienced here in the Dallas County justice system. The police I encounter were not concerned about finding out the truth. The prosecutors following my arrest were equally unconcerned with what determing facts from fiction. And the Judges, particularly Manny Alvarez was the most dishonest, unprofessional and unethical person I have ever known that was allowed to sit on the bench.<BR/><BR/>Had I been in any other jurisdiction in this country, my arrest and indictments would of required much more truths/proof that a crime actually occurred. Far more then what the police and prosecution have relied upon to run up a $250,000.00 bill (and counting)that taxpayers have been left to pay. Prior to my arrest in 2005, had anyone told me that these sort of things were occurring and would continue on after D.A. Watkins came into office I would of argued them down. But even D.A. Watkins has shocked and disappointed many of those following my case by him promising to look into my case after I told him I am INNOCENT, last year during a criminal justice workshop during the Justice Summit held at Friendship West Baptist church. To date, D.A. Watkins has not fulfilled his promise because had he done so I would not be preparing for my first of two jury trials on April 21, 2008. <BR/><BR/>My cases gives D.A. Watkins and other "concerned elected officials" a blue print of things wrong with our county justice system that need to be addressed, especially in non-DNA cases. With all the DNA exonerations and pressure to free the wrongfully convicted where DNA samples are available, problems surrounding the prosecution of innocent people in non-DNA cases have literally taken a back seat whenever discussions about reforms and the Dallas County judiciary have been discussed.<BR/><BR/>I hope some day that convictions and locking up the majority of our society wont be the priority, although that doesn't seem likely because the Pew Center on the States released a devastating report, "One in 100: Behind Bars in America", finding that more than one in every 100 adults is now incarcerated in a US prison or jail. The numbers are 1 in 54 for men, 1 in 36 for Latino men, and 1 in 15 for African-American men.<BR/><BR/>Lakeith Amir-Sharif (Sharif)<BR/>Making The Walls Transparent (MTWT-Texas)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-75599994477797610862008-04-07T09:45:00.000-05:002008-04-07T09:45:00.000-05:00Rage, if you believe a) that people are not entitl...Rage, if you believe a) that people are not entitled to their "preconceived notions" and b) that lawyers don't have any, that's totally fair. If you believe every citizen has a right to participate in the process regardless of race or "creed," or that the legal system has its own unstated biases, it's understandable that non-lawyers might not view jury selection so benignly, and perhaps they shouldn't. (Another word for "preconceived notions" is "values.") It's arguably the most important factor determining the outcome of a trial.<BR/><BR/>The truth is certainly some layered intermixture of both. Though I don't subscribe to Rose's conspiracy theory view of the justice system, neither do I believe that voir dire in criminal law weeds out "bias" - rather it encourages certain biases over others, which is a different matter entirely.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-44079448857428502692008-04-07T09:15:00.000-05:002008-04-07T09:15:00.000-05:00There is only one side in the courtroom, and that ...<I>There is only one side in the courtroom, and that is the government's side. They even pick the jury they like -- the judge, prosecutor, and defender all working in collusion to 'improve' the jury more than a random selection, which by definition cannot be improved upon. The judge is not bound by the jury's decision, so the jury really is there just for show, a pretense of fairness.</I><BR/><BR/>Random people have random biases. Weeding them out in voir dire is not collusion between the lawyers and judge, it's getting rid of preconceived notions and find the twelve who will most closely listen to the evidence and follow the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-76501221713432468442008-04-06T19:55:00.000-05:002008-04-06T19:55:00.000-05:00American Police interrogation methods are utterly ...American Police interrogation methods are utterly barbaric and wrongheaded. So about par for the course for this country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-21404739006102151172008-04-06T15:05:00.000-05:002008-04-06T15:05:00.000-05:00While there might be some legal definitional terms...While there might be some legal definitional terms of art involved, it's pretty clear to the layman when the adversarial process begins in many cases. This is reinforced when the govt. refers to enforcement activities as "war", and dresses up the LEOs as soldiers. I could go on, but you get my point.<BR/><BR/>Good post!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-11367536109877404462008-04-06T12:49:00.000-05:002008-04-06T12:49:00.000-05:00The cops want to convict everyone they arrest. The...The cops want to convict everyone they arrest. <BR/><BR/>The prosecutor wants to win every case, and the only wins are convictions. Convicting on all charges is preferred to conviction on only some of the charges.<BR/><BR/>The judge wants convictions, despite protests to the contrary. Imagine a newly-sworn judge whose first case ended in acquittal, and then the second, and the third, and so on and so on. How many losses would his employer tolerate before he got yanked? So, yes, the judge wants convictions.<BR/><BR/>What about the defense attorney? He makes his best money by drawing out the process as long as he can, collecting all the fees he can along the way, and then getting a conviction, which lets him hope to shake some more coing from the money tree on appeal.<BR/><BR/>There is only one side in the courtroom, and that is the government's side. They even pick the jury they like -- the judge, prosecutor, and defender all working in collusion to 'improve' the jury more than a random selection, which by definition cannot be improved upon. The judge is not bound by the jury's decision, so the jury really is there just for show, a pretense of fairness.<BR/><BR/>What side is the accused on? He doesn't have a side, he's alone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com