tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post3184995660117211078..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Will new Texas' eyewitness ID law reduce false convictions?Gritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-74499399789605464432011-11-17T12:05:23.828-06:002011-11-17T12:05:23.828-06:00"if eyewitness evidence gathered via flawed p..."if eyewitness evidence gathered via flawed procedures is introduced and the defense objects, they cannot get it excluded"<br /><br />Here's a question: why is exclusion of evidence a good thing? Is it because you are certain that 12 jurors would all be too foolish to see the flaws, even after they are pointed out by the defense? After all, if only one juror believed that the evidence was insufficient to convict, then no guilty finding can result. Why not simply give the jurors all the evidence and ask them to use their common sense and whatever other evidence can be provided to help them see the truth? After all, if the State concealed exculpatory evidence and justified it by saying that the evidence was unreliable, you'd be screaming bloody murder that the defense should have been allowed to present it anyway and let the jury make the decision whether to believe it or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-45642170119201447362011-11-16T12:35:45.461-06:002011-11-16T12:35:45.461-06:00Hey Grits, thanks for the Q. and for providing the...Hey Grits, thanks for the Q. and for providing the answer(s). I personally can't thank you enough for finding the topic worthy of following and updating as needed. <br /><br />I hope that eventually, the live show-up portion of the procedure includes mandating that no less than two citizens are required to be present. Subjects being derived from existing jury pools strictly for overseeing and out of sight of (and having no contact) detectives and victims. Maybe Jeff will see the validity of public overseers in addition to recording and support it? Thanks again.Thomas R. Griffithhttp://www.projectnotguilty.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-35456455850837418472011-11-16T11:51:46.138-06:002011-11-16T11:51:46.138-06:003:09, on behalf of the (regular) GFB readers, we&#...3:09, on behalf of the (regular) GFB readers, we'd like to thank you for spanking 5:57's grey haired butt. Tick Tock is also a regular and constantly suffers from diarrhea of the keyboard. Who get's up at 5:57AM to puke on GFB? Who says "give me a break"? Little girls and retired former ADA's - that's who. <br /><br />Thanks again for preventing another attempted highjacking of the GFB comment section regarding what seems to be one of the best informational postings on the topic.Thomas R. Griffithhttp://www.projectnotguilty.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-63207733463238998732011-11-15T12:11:28.350-06:002011-11-15T12:11:28.350-06:00"3:09, give me a break! The sky is not fallin..."3:09, give me a break! The sky is not falling. Everything will be okay. Didn't Kerry Max Cook plead guilty? Next topic."<br /><br />Do your research before you spout off. Cook didn't plead guilty. He pled no contest and was given time served. At the time the deal was offered to him by the sleazy prosecutor (who is now sleazy disrict judge Jack Skeen), the prosecution knew that DNA evidence would exonerate Cook. The results of the DNA testing, released weeks later, did exonerate Cook. Anyone who actually takes the time to learn about the case will see how obvious it was the Cook was innocent. Skeen and his slimy assistant, Dobbs, had more than enough evidence in their files to convict the real killer - James Mayfield. Because these tough law and order proseutors lacked the integrity to admit they made a mistake, the real killer died, having never been brought to justice. Before you make ignorant comments...take a little time to learn a little about what you're talking about 5:57. <br /><br />This is a fairly common tactic of slimy prosecutors like Skeen. The current Smith County DA, Matt Bingham, who was mentored by Skeen, did the same thing in the recent Mineola Swingers Club case. He offered the defendants, who had been sentenced to life in prison, a deal that allowed them to plead only to injury to a child for time served because he knew his case had fallen apart and the defendants were likely innocent. Bingham lacks even a speck of integrity so he wouldn't admit he was wrong. If he thought for a minute that these people had really done what he had accused them of, he never would have offered them a deal that allowed them to avoid even having to register as sex offenders. He knew they were innocent. <br /><br />Likewise, Skeen and Dobbs knew Cook was innocent. If they believed he had committed the heinous rape and murder of which he was accused, they never would have agreed to a deal that let him walk off of death row. These type of sleazy prosecutors put their political reputations ahead of justice. And, morons like 5:57 just lap up the lies the continue to tell without question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-72090209019414082782011-11-15T05:57:51.481-06:002011-11-15T05:57:51.481-06:003:09, give me a break! The sky is not falling. Ev...3:09, give me a break! The sky is not falling. Everything will be okay. Didn't Kerry Max Cook plead guilty? Next topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-19975981068754710202011-11-14T15:09:06.433-06:002011-11-14T15:09:06.433-06:00How many of those false convictions that we blame ...How many of those false convictions that we blame on eyewitness testimony also have prosecutorial misconduct associated with them? Kerry Cook and Anthony Graves come to mind. How many more fall into this category?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-19359919551798968002011-11-14T11:15:57.827-06:002011-11-14T11:15:57.827-06:00Nice try! It would be going WAY too far, 10:21, to...Nice try! It would be going WAY too far, 10:21, to say the witness is therefore "reliable." Reducing errors at the margins does not ensure "reliability."<br /><br />That said, if the jury instruction went both ways, I could see in a perfect world saying, when it was done right, that the evidence was gathered according to best practices designed to reduce errors; or not, when it wasn't.<br /><br />Alas, though, we do not live in a perfect world, and since the new law doesn't require departmental policies to conform with LEMIT or national best practices, for now you couldn't honestly say much more to a jury than that the department did or didn't follow their own policies, which is a far cry from saying an eyewitness is presumptively "reliable."Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-88040574940526235652011-11-14T10:21:04.475-06:002011-11-14T10:21:04.475-06:00Perhaps there could also be future legislation tha...Perhaps there could also be future legislation that if police follow the model policy, the State can get a jury instruction that the eyewitness identification was reliable. Just a thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com