On your reasoning. if any source of evidence is ever less than 100% trustworthy, then it reverses the burden of proof to expect the defendant to rebut it. Incidentally I don't say that's the law--the burden's still on the govt, even if a frameup theory is your theory of the defense. It's just that real people won't accept your theory if you have nothing but the general supposition that the cops are creeps. In some communities, btw, that supposition may go further than others. A friend of mine who is a federal prosecutor in DC says that in his "state court" (Superioe Court) work, his conviction rate is way lower than the the usual 97-99% he gets in his federal court work. As I note, your view is that no one should ever be criminally prosecuted for anything. It's a view, one can say that much for it. See if you can persuade anyone of it. With regard to the "planting evidence" issue, I note that no one requires that the defendant take up the practical burden of arguing a frameup theory. El-Amin might have argued self-defense or provovation,a s JB and I have been discussing. As to your corroboration theory, independently corroborated by what? According to you, the cops and the scientisdts (that is, the prosecution's forensic experts) can't be trusted not to cheat. So how is this corroboration to proceed? Once agsin, we are back to your idea that no one should ever be criiminally prosecuted. Maybe life is nicer in AZN, but I live in Chicago, which is full of really bad guys who rob and rape and kill people. I defend some of them. One of my clients is a gang murderer. I'll get him off if I can (though I doubt that I can), but between you and me, we're all safer if he's in jail, though I think the 30 years he's doing is too much. Ten years would probably be enough to give him a reason to change his ways, especially if they gave him the education he didn't get in school. jks
billbartlett at dodo.com.au wrote:andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>Bill, don't be dense. The murder guns were produced in
>evidence, and had been found in his car. As with the
>DC snipers, that's normally enough to overcome a
>presumption of innocence; a rational jury could take
>it as proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The
>speculative possibility that the guns might have been
>planted, without any evidence to support it beyond the
>fact that sometimes the cops do that, is unlikely to
>persuade a rational (not a racist or pro-cop, but a
>rational) jury otherwise.
If, as you admit and as everyone knows, the cops sometimes plant evidence, a cop's word is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence. In a way that's too bad, but if you can't trust cops not to routinely perjure themselves, then to require that a defendant must prove the cop is lying is effectively to reverse the onus of proof. It is very difficult to prove that evidence has been planted or tampered with, the solution is stricter protocols to ensure the chain of evidence cannot be tampered with. To require that the prosecution prove that the evidence has not been tampered with.
There was an example reported on a tele science show the other night that illustrates the point. A defendant charged with armed robbery faced DNA evidence that the victim's blood was found on his clothes. However, closer analysis of the sample revealed that the blood on the clothes was faintly tainted. The victim had required a blood transfusion after the robbery, the cops had then collected a blood sample from the victim and presumably had the opportunity to plant some of that blood on the defendant's clothes. Fortunately the cops were too stupid to realise that it would be possible to forensically determine that the blood on the defendant's clothes got there after the defendant had had his blood transfusion.
Cops should not be allowed anywhere near evidence once it has been logged in. As for allowing cops to collect scientific evidence, the mind boggles! Not that scientists can be trusted either, there are plenty of examples of forensic and fingerprint evidence being tampered with or simply lied about by scientific examiners supposedly independent independent of the police.
The point is that no-one should be simply trusted. Trust is not appropriate. Testimony should be independently corroborated. If corroboration isn't available, then innocent until proved guilty means that the case is not proved.
> It's true that it's hard to
>get evidence of a frame-up, but the fact that if your
>theory of defense is a frame-up you need the evidence
>doesn't reverse the burden of proof.
Why does the defendant need to prove that the evidence was not planted or tampered with? Rather, the prosecution should be required to prove that the evidence was *not* tampered with. You have it back to front.
> I do take your
>point, that in your view the cops are NEVER to
>believed, and NO ONE should ever be convicted, but
>it's not a point I agree with.
It was not my point that no-one should ever be convicted, but clearly the cops cannot simply be believed. We cannot take them at their word, because it is a known fact that cops lie and plant evidence. What the criminal justice system requires is is stricter protocols to ensure the chain of evidence can not be tampered with. That will never happen while the burden of proving the evidence has, or has not, been tampered with falls on the defense. Because the defense has no control over how evidence is collected and safeguarded.
Your proposition amounts to simply saying that we need to trust the cops, which is quite irrational given that it is a known fact that cops will make things up. Have an incentive to concoct evidence.
> I am, as you know,
>extremely conservative, judicially at least. In fact,
>I am literally a willing tool of capitalist interests.
>This is actually the case, no irony. So pay me no
>mind. jks
That's OK, I see it as a challenge to teach you the error of your ways. ;-)
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021122/590c9a27/attachment.htm>