User Tag List

Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Why Prisoner Proven Innocent Can't Be Released

  1. #1
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second Class1 year registered
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    kazenatsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked: 1,054
    Rep Power
    2349585

    Why Prisoner Proven Innocent Can't Be Released

    A man was convicted of murder based on the testimony of several witnesses and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

    However, after the conviction the testimony of the witnesses began to unravel.

    Not long after the conviction, one of the witnesses admitted that she had not told the truth in court about whether she had received a reward for coming forward and giving evidence.

    A new trial was set, but the man was now offered a plea deal by the state. He could probably get out of prison in 5 years if he accepted the plea deal. His lawyer told him he should take it. But he didn't accept the plea deal.

    He was convicted again.

    Years later, the prisoner got some help from an outside organization, trying to find evidence that might show the prisoner was innocent. They discovered that the main witness of the trial would not have been able to clearly see what happened at night, all she would have been able to see at that distance from inside her window were shadowy silhouettes. There was no way the witness could have actually been sure the suspect was one of the faces she saw.

    20 years after the crime, a new judge granted an evidentiary hearing. The three witnesses came forward again, and this time two of them backed down. A forensic visual scientist testified that there was no way any of the three witnesses could have clearly been able to make out a face from where they were at the time.

    However, there would be no retrial. While a new judge said that if the new evidence had been presented at the first trial it would be unlikely the man would have been convicted, nevertheless since there was no new evidence presented which incontrovertibly showed innocence, the man was not entitled to a new trial.

    It was now 28 years after the crime. One of the witnesses had died, and another witness now admits that she didn't get a clear look at the suspect, and says she felt pressure from the police to say it was the man.

    They found another witness who was never called to the trial who says she is sure it is not the same man.

    Lastly, the alleged jailhouse informant who had testified against the man had originally been looking at a 25 year sentence but only ended up serving one year in prison after providing his testimony at trial, raising suspicions about whether the prosecutor had taken it easy on him during the prosecution in exchange for a false testimony to make sure the other man got convicted.



    Last edited by kazenatsu; 08-22-2019 at 11:08 PM.

  2. #2
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteran
    Overall activity: 49.0%

    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    18,936
    Thanks
    6,899
    Thanked: 6,426
    Rep Power
    21474861
    Quote Originally Posted by kazenatsu View Post
    A man was convicted of murder based on the testimony of several witnesses and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

    However, after the conviction the testimony of the witnesses began to unravel.

    Not long after the conviction, one of the witnesses admitted that she had not told the truth in court about whether she had received a reward for coming forward and giving evidence.

    A new trial was set, but the man was now offered a plea deal by the state. He could probably get out of prison in 5 years if he accepted the plea deal. His lawyer told him he should take it. But he didn't accept the plea deal.

    He was convicted again.

    Years later, the prisoner got some help from an outside organization, trying to find evidence that might show the prisoner was innocent. They discovered that the main witness of the trial would not have been able to clearly see what happened at night, all she would have been able to see at that distance from inside her window were shadowy silhouettes. There was no way the witness could have actually been sure the suspect was one of the faces she saw.

    20 years after the crime, a new judge granted an evidentiary hearing. The three witnesses came forward again, and this time two of them backed down. A forensic visual scientist testified that there was no way any of the three witnesses could have clearly been able to make out a face from where they were at the time.

    However, there would be no retrial. While a new judge said that if the new evidence had been presented at the first trial it would be unlikely the man would have been convicted, nevertheless since there was no new evidence presented which incontrovertibly showed innocence, the man was not entitled to a new trial.

    It was now 28 years after the crime. One of the witnesses had died, and another witness now admits that she didn't get a clear look at the suspect, and says she felt pressure from the police to say it was the man.

    They found another witness who was never called to the trial who says she is sure it is not the same man.

    Lastly, the alleged jailhouse informant who had testified against the man had originally been looking at a 25 year sentence but only ended up serving one year in prison after providing his testimony at trial, raising suspicions about whether the prosecutor had taken it easy on him during the prosecution in exchange for a false testimony to make sure the other man got convicted.



    Shpulda had some "dough" 4 a LAWYER....

    Get processed into the State thats called a Public "Pretender"...but ya get railroaded 5 ways from Sunday

    Better yet is say nothing to the Cops

    STFU
    ..

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Karl For This Useful Post:

    Northern Rivers (08-23-2019)

  4. #3
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points31 days registeredTagger Second Class
    Overall activity: 69.0%

    Piru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,484
    Thanks
    499
    Thanked: 1,116
    Rep Power
    3865490
    Is this real or a cartoon?

  5. #4
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteranRecommendation Second ClassTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 63.0%

    patrickt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Oaxaca, Mexico, for over twenty years. Born and raised in Memphis, TN, and worked in Colorado.
    Posts
    28,335
    Thanks
    3,454
    Thanked: 16,734
    Rep Power
    21474871
    Quote Originally Posted by kazenatsu View Post
    A man was convicted of murder based on the testimony of several witnesses and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

    However, after the conviction the testimony of the witnesses began to unravel.

    Not long after the conviction, one of the witnesses admitted that she had not told the truth in court about whether she had received a reward for coming forward and giving evidence.

    A new trial was set, but the man was now offered a plea deal by the state. He could probably get out of prison in 5 years if he accepted the plea deal. His lawyer told him he should take it. But he didn't accept the plea deal.

    He was convicted again.

    Years later, the prisoner got some help from an outside organization, trying to find evidence that might show the prisoner was innocent. They discovered that the main witness of the trial would not have been able to clearly see what happened at night, all she would have been able to see at that distance from inside her window were shadowy silhouettes. There was no way the witness could have actually been sure the suspect was one of the faces she saw.

    20 years after the crime, a new judge granted an evidentiary hearing. The three witnesses came forward again, and this time two of them backed down. A forensic visual scientist testified that there was no way any of the three witnesses could have clearly been able to make out a face from where they were at the time.

    However, there would be no retrial. While a new judge said that if the new evidence had been presented at the first trial it would be unlikely the man would have been convicted, nevertheless since there was no new evidence presented which incontrovertibly showed innocence, the man was not entitled to a new trial.

    It was now 28 years after the crime. One of the witnesses had died, and another witness now admits that she didn't get a clear look at the suspect, and says she felt pressure from the police to say it was the man.

    They found another witness who was never called to the trial who says she is sure it is not the same man.

    Lastly, the alleged jailhouse informant who had testified against the man had originally been looking at a 25 year sentence but only ended up serving one year in prison after providing his testimony at trial, raising suspicions about whether the prosecutor had taken it easy on him during the prosecution in exchange for a false testimony to make sure the other man got convicted.



    Sorry, but this makes no sense. Murderers and other criminals are released every month when defense attorneys show prosecutorial misconduct or errors in court procedure. In the city where I worked, a man was sentenced to prison for murder. Ten years later lawyers presented proof that the prosecutors, who had both since become judges, had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and had altered lab reports to conceal exculpatory evidence from the defense. The man, who might well be guilty, was released.

    A man in Chicago killed a woman and her three-year old daughter. Detectives were interviewing witnesses and the man gave two detective conflicting stories and acted evasive. They arrested him and searched the apartment. They found blooding clothes, a large knife covered with blood, and the man confessed repeatedly. Years later attorneys argued the search was illegal, a judge agreed, the man was released and killed another woman. No new evidence in his trial either.

    So, I'm think the source is nonsense. Note what's missing from the video. Who the man is? Where this crime happened? When this crime happened? All the information needed to do a search is missing. When Dr. Ford wanted to lie about Justice Kavanaugh she was advised to not try and include any details. Jussie Smollett tried to put in details. Skipping details is good if you are lying.

    I think the man might be Benjamine Spencer and the crime might have happened in West Dallas. My source is NPR which I don't consider remotely trustworthy.
    https://www.npr.org/2017/12/06/56831...-out-of-prison

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to patrickt For This Useful Post:

    JMWinPR (08-23-2019)

  7. #5
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second Class1 year registered
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    kazenatsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked: 1,054
    Rep Power
    2349585
    Quote Originally Posted by patrickt View Post
    Sorry, but this makes no sense. Murderers and other criminals are released every month when defense attorneys show prosecutorial misconduct or errors in court procedure.
    It's probably in large part because this man already had a retrial. And the judge who reviewed the case after that didn't consider any of the additional evidence "new" enough to warrant reconsideration. It was basically the same witnesses, but with just a different perspective on them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •