tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post4410390261495670175..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Bill creating loophole in Rules of Evidence would cause more false convictionsGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-52052707607105354702013-04-22T14:45:00.374-05:002013-04-22T14:45:00.374-05:00Bottom line is, all this bill does is make a prose...Bottom line is, all this bill does is make a prosecuter's job easier to win a conviction at the expense of the possibility of putting more innocent people in the pen. When it comes to determining a man's freedom, a win and loss record shouldn't matter. This isn't a sport...there is no playoffs that lead to a shiny prize at the end. It's not only a persons life you're fucking with, it's a whole family you're breaking apart, which causes more problems in society. The whole system needs to be restructured, it needs to be less of a competition. There should be more balance in prosecuting and defending. It's too easy to get convicted and too difficult to defend. Adding more and more contraversial bills like this won't solve anything. FREE SPM!!!-beaniemanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-30811612203059079942013-04-22T13:49:10.789-05:002013-04-22T13:49:10.789-05:00Also, since you have it in your head that this blo...Also, since you have it in your head that this blog supports child molesters...why would you come here? Do you frequently visit those kinds of sites?-beaniemanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-16875228059661382462013-04-22T13:43:53.030-05:002013-04-22T13:43:53.030-05:00This blog doesn't support child molesters, it ...This blog doesn't support child molesters, it supports a man that we believe was wrongfully accused of child molestation. If you think he's guilty, then show us some evidence besides some cracked out parents, that abused their children themselves, who can't get their story straight.-beaniemanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-44336369842353369652013-04-12T10:24:39.280-05:002013-04-12T10:24:39.280-05:00What about accusations of sex crimes that allege t...What about accusations of sex crimes that allege touching with no genetic material as evidence where the child accuser has a long history of false accusations and sexual acting out as well as being caught in several lies on the "outcry" video. How often is the prosecutor able to keep the past of this accuser out of evidence? How likely is that to result in a false conviction because a child wanted to cause problems for someone who did not let him have his way? So do we go out of our way to protect the "victim" at the expense of the accused who should be presumed innocent with the right to confront and impeach the witnesses against him? How often will a prosecutor seek a conviction where he knows reasonable doubt exists, but believes his witness can bring him a conviction anyway. Just chalk it up to being a close case and so what that an innocent person rots in prison. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-23087465498329679322013-04-12T09:23:15.062-05:002013-04-12T09:23:15.062-05:00To the poster at 8:23, here is an example of the r...To the poster at 8:23, here is an example of the reason why. Taken from the Austin Chronicle of 2010-09-10: "Seven-year-old Ashley Estell disappeared from a Plano playground on Sept. 4, 1993. The following day her body was found on the side of a road, six miles away; she had been strangled. Police quickly found and charged with the crime 23-year-old Michael Blair – he'd been seen driving past the site where Estell's body was dumped with several teddy bears in his car, and prosecutors later said that hair found at the crime scene was a match to his. Although Blair proclaimed his innocence, he was convicted of capital murder and, after a 90-minute jury deliberation, sentenced to death.<br /><br />Estell's murder prompted Texas lawmakers to get tough on those who would harm children and, although there was no evidence that Estell was sexually abused, to focus that toughness on laws aimed at punishing "sex offenders." At the time of Estell's disappearance, Blair, who'd previously been convicted of burglary and indecency with a child, was on parole. The facts surrounding Estell's disappearance and death combined with the facts of Blair's criminal history prompted state Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, to call for swift and strong action against sexual predators. "So that we may never forget the life that was lost and certainly the tragedy that occurred in Plano, I plan to call these Ashley's Laws," Shapiro told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1994. "No community is safe while we have a broken criminal justice system. We always wait for the big tragedy before anything is done. Michael Blair should never have been free to roam that park."<br /><br />Blair was exonerated in 2008 after new genetic testing proved that the hair from the crime scene was not his. Estell's real killer remains at large.<br /><br />...<br />Sadly, for most wrongfully accused of sex crimes, genetic material does not exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-90268303552220026832013-04-12T09:01:25.302-05:002013-04-12T09:01:25.302-05:008:23, Not to hijack your question, but a more appl...8:23, Not to hijack your question, but a more apples-to-apples version would be "let's suppose a person is on trial for arson and three times before someone had accused him of starting fires, but either he was never charged, the charges were dismissed or prior juries aquitted him. Are you just supposed to ignore the fact that at any point in his life other people accused him of starting fires?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-60603850397397582992013-04-12T08:23:48.178-05:002013-04-12T08:23:48.178-05:00But why do we have to view cases and defendants in...But why do we have to view cases and defendants in a vacuum? Where in the world is the logic in that? It's commonly understood by social scientists and psychologists that a person's past is the best predictor of future behavior. Why should it be any different in the judicial system? Why should a jury be forced to wear blinders and not consider all evidence about the person on trial? If you go to a doctor to seek a diagnosis for some unknown medical condition, isn't it important that a doctor be given a complete medical history? In another context, let's suppose a person is on trial for arson and it's known that the person had been convicted of arson three times before. Are you just supposed to ignore the fact that the prior events never occurred? Maybe I'm out of touch, but I think most jurors and the public at large believe this type of evidence is highly relevant and should be considered. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-48692608920897843912013-04-12T07:27:30.193-05:002013-04-12T07:27:30.193-05:007:17, it's because it relieves the prosecutor ...7:17, it's because it relieves the prosecutor from the burden of proving the charges they indicted the defendant on. More convictions in which prosecutors don't have to prove their case means more cases with a greater likelihood the evidence wasn't good enough on its own to sustain a conviction, but this bill provides another avenue to convict anyway.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-58684761141935285012013-04-12T07:17:53.812-05:002013-04-12T07:17:53.812-05:00I'm still waiting for someone to logically exp...I'm still waiting for someone to logically explain to me how this bill would result in more false convictions as opposed to more correct convictions? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-54624584480143561872013-04-11T22:10:56.669-05:002013-04-11T22:10:56.669-05:00Anonymous @ 11:34 seems to have no understanding o...Anonymous @ 11:34 seems to have no understanding of the current system of justice in place in Texas and most other states.<br /><br />The proposed legislation wants to allow prosecutors to introduces the defendant's previous criminal record, even if the defendant was not convicted for that offense, during the initial trial. The jury in the initial trial is the "trier of the fact" only. The jury is supposed to determine whether the defendant committed the offense with which he or she is charge in the current trial. Past guilt was the focus of the previous trial and is not the trial for the defendant is currently being tried.<br />Previous convictions can be introduced during the penalty phase of the trail, but not for instances for which the defendant was not convicted.<br /><br />Regarding your claim to be "law-abiding", you forget that the Bill of Rights is the law. So those who try to violate the Bill of Rights, including legislators, are lawbreakers. <br /><br />Justice Louis Brandeis pointed the consequences when the government breaks the law:<br /><br />"The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means -- to declare that the government may commit crimes -- would bring terrible retribution."benbshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02723799073407947773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-26239520355400118012013-04-11T19:20:22.685-05:002013-04-11T19:20:22.685-05:00People seem to be under the mistaken impression th...People seem to be under the mistaken impression that prior offenses or bad acts are not admissible in criminal trials. They are, and they come into evidence all the time, the prosecutor just has to state a specific justification other than a propensity to commit the same (or similar) crime. Judges let this stuff in routinely and appellate courts give them broad leeway. Also, I was not aware there is a crisis in getting sex convictions. As a legal issue, all it takes is the word of the victim for a jury to convict, and they don't even need that if there's some other evidence. This appears to be a solution in search of a problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-17090807051509787212013-04-11T18:50:50.100-05:002013-04-11T18:50:50.100-05:00A good prosecutor attempts to convince the jury th...A good prosecutor attempts to convince the jury that the defendant should be convicted because he or she committed the crime in question.<br /><br />A weak prosecutor attempts to convince the jury that the defendant should be convicted because he or she is a bad person.<br /><br />Seems we have some really weak prosecutors commenting here. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-6895212688491749642013-04-11T14:28:45.507-05:002013-04-11T14:28:45.507-05:00@Anon 12:46:
How would I feel if I was presented ...@Anon 12:46:<br /><br />How would I feel if I was presented evidence that did not prove the man guilty, irregardless if he was a registered sex offender? I would feel exactly as I would if he was not a previously registered offender. The Prosecution can currently bring in past criminal behaviors during the sentencing phase of trial. Why should that also be able to "prove guilt" by associating past criminal conduct in a yet unproven case? <br /><br />It is insane to attempt to explain current guilt for an accusation by introducing evidence from an unrelated incident. If it were that easy, then all police need to do to 'clean their cities of crime' would be to drive to a registered offender's home, arrest them, and say "little Suzie said you touched her", and then get a conviction from evidence from an already resolved trial. <br /><br />Do you enjoy that thought of corruption at that level? If you think no cop would plant evidence, you are either a cop, or really really naive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-6495053768112863762013-04-11T13:26:19.202-05:002013-04-11T13:26:19.202-05:00To 12:46 ... I am a mother of daughters. This is n...To 12:46 ... I am a mother of daughters. This is not a question that I take lightly, but I still believe that a case should be tried on its own merits. Yes, even if my daughter was the victim. I say this having also been a victim of sexual abuse. <br /><br />One thing that it seems some people forget is that innocent men and women who are either wrongfully convicted or who take the plea to avoid the risk are victims too. Our society is very good about wanting to protect innocent victims who are on the receiving end of an individual, but if a person is wrongfully convicted he is expected to just suck it up.<br /><br />In the case of sex charges, no evidence of guilt is required, just someone's word and in our current witch-hunt climate, someone's word is more than enough. For other crimes: murder, robbery, extortion, kidnapping, you name it, some form of evidence is required to go "beyond reasonable doubt" but not for sex offenses. Just being accused of an offense, even if you are aquitted or the charges are dropped means that for the rest of your life there will "always be reasonable doubt" as to your innocence.<br /><br />For those who have never been on the receiving end of the justice system, it's easy to believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is the way things work, but it's not. When it comes to sex charges, everything moves forward with the assumption of guilt. The deck is already stacked against the person charged and allowing prior unrelated incidences as evidence will only make it that much harder for an innocent person to fight for freedom.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-69035150866449789432013-04-11T12:46:34.088-05:002013-04-11T12:46:34.088-05:00So then, for all you opponents of this bill, how m...So then, for all you opponents of this bill, how many prior convictions for molesting children should a defendant have before a jury is permitted to hear about it? One, two, ten, fifty, a hundred? Or do you just believe that it's never relevant to the issue of guilt? That regardless of how many former victims there were, the jury should never be allowed to know about it?<br /><br />Hypothetically, how would you like to be a juror on a child molestation case that returned an aquittal only to learn that the defendant had multiple prior victims? Never mind, I suspect that many of you would be just fine with that. Let me ask it differently, how would you feel if you were the parent of that child victim? Does anyone on here actually care at all about victims? <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-81347444080557322162013-04-11T09:31:54.258-05:002013-04-11T09:31:54.258-05:00Ok, so take the 'sex' out of the crime for...Ok, so take the 'sex' out of the crime for a moment. Let's use "murderous" crime. Would the idea that someone 'may have' a crime in court? How far would the case get on evidence of <i>alleged</i> criminal enterprises, before the Supreme Court metaphorically slaps some sense into legislators? <br /><br />We have here a direct and certain affront to the Constitution, and all of the rights for the accused that it contains. As "innocent" people stand back to gaze upon its destruction with glee, they are honestly ignorant of the very ideas that they believe in are being turned against them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-39581495996890170882013-04-11T08:55:21.242-05:002013-04-11T08:55:21.242-05:00To Anonymous @ 11:34: A comment concerning your re...To Anonymous @ 11:34: A comment concerning your remark "by not allowing this evidence in, all you're doing is increasing the odds that a guilty child molester will be acquitted. I understand that would be cause for celebration on this blog."<br /><br />Why do you feel, as I have heard countless times, that seeking justice within the bounds of the law constitutes sympathy for truly guilty persons? I think you'll find that the majority of rational people want the guilty to be held accountable for their actions. We must, however, operate on the basis of the rule of law and not out of raw emotion.<br /><br />No one wants a judicial system that presumes (without the requirement to prove) guilt - right? No one wants innocent (and I'm referring to actually innocent) persons convicted, incarcerated, and at times executed - right?justTheFactsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-80790885963411780862013-04-11T08:29:04.413-05:002013-04-11T08:29:04.413-05:00WHEN will legislators ever learn that locking up S...WHEN will legislators ever learn that locking up SOMEBODY does no good unless they're the RIGHT body.<br />In most cases where an Innocent person is finally released after overturning a wrongful conviction, the DNA Evidence goes on to find the true guilty party. In too many cases that individual is also in prison because s/he was allowed to continue their lucrative(?) criminal career long after the poor schmuck was locked up for one s/he didn't do. <br />They FINALLY screwed up bad enough that even 'Barney with the Badge' couldn't overlook them.John N Floridanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-86321141497778498312013-04-11T07:09:33.654-05:002013-04-11T07:09:33.654-05:00Those who use this as a not so disguised forum to ...Those who use this as a not so disguised forum to vent their personal feelings about sex offenders obviously don't know Scott very well. Accusing him of using this blog as a pro-sex offender platform. Scott is pro justice for ALL people, regardless of personal feelings. That is how the system is supposed to work. Remember, And justice for all? If you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then it applies to everyone, period.dHarbour60https://www.blogger.com/profile/18295172060687504980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-72590783533270829112013-04-10T22:04:05.741-05:002013-04-10T22:04:05.741-05:00What the alleged victim thought was that the accus...What the alleged victim thought was that the accused might be arrested as harassment or just go to jail for a few days, then come back so they could have their way. One girl just wanted her step-father out of the house, and new he would go to prison. She later regretted it in a letter after she had grown up and matured, realizing that she had ruined this mans life for 25 years.<br />I remember in two of these letters, the victim was trying to help get the prisoner out, but the law was really not trying to hear it.<br /><br />Its already too easy to convict a sex offender - guilty or innocent. There is not way to really prove what the ratio is.Already Convictednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-50638649192531373622013-04-10T22:01:12.988-05:002013-04-10T22:01:12.988-05:00I am a convicted RSO, and this comment goes mostly...I am a convicted RSO, and this comment goes mostly to the anonymous poster who is so adamant about how good this bill is.<br /><br />First I want to dispel a thought I am sure you are having, and that is because I am already and RSO (and a truly guilty one, of molesting a little girl), that someone like me would have sympathy upon another RSO facing an accusation for a second offense.<br /><br />I can tell you that I regret my behavior. I thought it was harmless at the time, but over the last decade, I have realized the hurt and disappointment I have caused to friends and family, and although I have no information on how my victim feels, I am sure she is extremely disappointed with me, and I have ruined much of her sense of trust - even beyond that for me. If I thought another RSO was truly guilty, I would have no sympathy on him (or her). Now they definitely know better.<br /><br />Having said that, I think this bill is a big mistake for several reasons. First, sex crimes that do not involve intercourse are virtually impossible to prove with physical evidence. This surely makes it difficult for the victim. If I had not confessed to my misbehavior, it would have been impossible for anyone to prove. It only involved touching, and there were no witnesses.<br /><br />But the penal code, section 22, states explicitly that in cases where the victim is younger than 14 that no proof is necessary except the victims testimony. That in and of itself seems like a total violation of our nations notion of a fair trial. But like I said, what can be done about a touching offense? Thats where its up to a jury to judge both the accused and the victim. The problem is that most juries selected after the voir dire probably have a "its better to convict an innocent man then set a guilty one free". It used to be that evidence of a promiscuous child could be introduced as a defense, but today, any miscreant behavior by the child (even that which may show the child is lying) is ignored.<br /><br /><br />You must have some understanding of the history of our legal system. In England, when kings still ruled before the discovery of America, a practice was held by the king called hearings in the Star Chamber. This allowed the king to do what he wanted in private, where the public could not have an idea of how their king was passing judgement. The king could have anything he wanted recorded on paper - even that the accused ( of course to be executed) could have chance to plead his innocence.<br /><br />When America was formed, and especially when our Constitution was designed, our justice system was designed so that practices such as Star Chamber hearings were illegal. Also in England, magistrates could tell the juries what to think. Also illegal in the United States.<br /><br />Proof by evidence is the only way to grant a fair trial. Most legislators are lawyers - same as prosecutors. They want to win; even at someone else's expense.<br /><br />Very young children are too easily manipulated, and teenage children can be flat out ruthless.<br /><br />Especially in the cases of teenage victims, it is way, way too easy for a teenager to look on the sex offender registry and find a neighbor, then just for spite and malicious fun, accuse the RSO of another offense. He's hung even if he's never met the accuser.<br /><br />Also consider stepchildren that are not happy with their parents remarriage choice, or a teenager that just wants there way, and used such as easy-to-convict legal system to threaten their parents.<br /><br />Think it doesn't happen. How would you know?<br /><br />When I was in prison (10 years), more than once ( I think about 4 or 5 times) I actually read apology letters written by nieces, daughters, or step daughters; now grown up, who had falsely accused their father, step-father, or uncle of sexual misconduct that led to a lengthy imprisonment. Their reasons were usually spite or brattiness.<br /><br />(continued in next post – we are limited to 4096 characters)Already Convictednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-85918720155717630082013-04-10T21:11:07.825-05:002013-04-10T21:11:07.825-05:00Justice is suppose to be blind. That means all cr...Justice is suppose to be blind. That means all crimes are equal under the law and all alleged crimes should be treated equally and fairly. Allowing what amounts to hearsay to convict someone is not justice. If you think that hearsay is justice, then post your name so I can spread some rumors about you! Either we are all equal under the law, or we are in trouble.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-53694969882374492482013-04-10T18:35:15.891-05:002013-04-10T18:35:15.891-05:005:54, just to mention it, you're the main one ...5:54, just to mention it, you're the main one here who seems to make no argument and have nothing to contribute but ad hominem attacks.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-2595387928709291462013-04-10T17:54:25.223-05:002013-04-10T17:54:25.223-05:00Don't you just love it when the perverts and t...Don't you just love it when the perverts and their supporters can't logically refute an argument on its merits and have to resort to irrelevant, ad hominem attacks on prosecutors and other law enforcement officials! Looks like Sen. Huffman's bill might be well on its way to becoming law and I'm certain that the overwhelming majority of the law abiding public will appreciate it. If you pervs are that worried about it, move to California. God bless Texas! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-84476713370843950722013-04-10T17:39:07.790-05:002013-04-10T17:39:07.790-05:00And as if on cue, see "Child witnesses can be...And as if on cue, see "<a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/612223/child-witnesses-can-be-easily-manipulated-new-study/" rel="nofollow">Child witnesses can be easily manipulated, new study</a>"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com