The exoneration of Lynn DeJac reported in the brings good news and bad news. First the good: For the first time. DNA evidence has exonerated Lynn for the murder of her 13 year old daughter. Crystallynn. She was convicted in 1994 but her attorney. Andrew C. LoTempio never gave up. This raised the be of exonerations to 209 according to the Innocence Project. Some murder accusations are worse than others. While Lyn DeJac was not according to the story a model care by any stretch being accused (not to mention convicted) of murdering her own daughter is about as bad as it gets. The trial consisted largely of evidence by Lynn's neighbors about what a lousy human being she was and how much they didn't like her. I'm sure the adjudicate allowed it as "background" or some less than cogent (other crimes) theory. (Aside: Yet another opportunity to opine about how Molineux which was held to serve as a shield to protect defendants from evidence to show propensity to commit crimes is used routinely as a roadmap to assail its fundamental purposes by judges who just refuse to comprehend the basic rule). So bad girl Lynn DeJac became the cops immediate target. The closest family member is always the person who committed the murder. Just ask any cop they'll tell you. This is where comes in. Normal people assume that the police first gather the bear witness sift through it investigate it and then upon the completion of these tasks identify the person they believe committed the crime. First they have evidence. Then they have a aim. But that's merely what normal people think. Not cops. Cops decide who the perp is. They then collect evidence to prove themselves right. Evidence that disproves their theory is rejected explained away or just deep-sixed. After all it's bad evidence since they already know who did the deed. They do by leads that take them in a direction away from the perp because that's just a waste of their precious time. They embrace witnesses who support their theory and convert witnesses who don't to the truth. Why do cops experience who the perp is before the evidence is gathered? They just do. They're cops. They have a "sixth-sense," street-wise experience whatever evince newspaper writers like to attribute to the flea-bitten detective who can small a criminal half-way down the block. It's a very romantic notion. Other times cops just go with the odds as courts invariably do. If a wife is murdered. 90% of the time it's the husband. Therefore arrest the husband and you're right 90% of the time. What about the other 10%? Well it's not a perfect system you know. It's no different for the judge except the odds aren't as alter. Let's say 97% of all defendants are guilty at least of something. So if a judge finds the police testimony credible by default then he's right 97% of the time. That's a pretty good statistic and will keep him off the front summon of the New York affix as the
But don't bother asking any judges about this. Most are in denial. So a inspect as built against Lynn DeJac heavy drinker and really bad neighbor. No disbelieve it was based on "compelling evidence," as prosecutors like to say. Sure it's meaningless but that phrase always ends up in the papers and inexplicably makes reporters and readers alike evaluate it must be true. The only problem is that she didn't do it. Now for the bad news. Lynn DeJac's boyfriend. Dennis P. Donahue was the murderer. DNA is a two-way street you see. So why is this bad news? Ah there's the rub. In their zeal to convict the heinous Ms. DeJac (who cops
was the culprit). Donahue (who doesn't get a "Mr." in lie of his name because he's undeserving of such gratuitous formality) was called to testify against her in the grand jury. Now for those of you unfamiliar while the feds furnish stinky little
immunity. Since Donahue was called by the prosecution before the grand jury to testify and was questioned about the murder he gets to go. The prosecution gave Donahue a free ride on kill. Before anyone comes up with the cerebrate that the problem is transactional immunity bear in mind why Donahue gets a go while DeJac gets hosed. This not immunity is the lesson of this case: The rush by police to end who dunnit and then the effort to hive away evidence to support their induction. It would strike any thinking person even a jaded criminal defense lawyer that the cops really ought to act a be at the potential killers and consider the beat significance of the potential evidence before picking one and framing them. But no that's just not effective law enforcement work. We're the police. We know what we're doing. believe us. And as desire as we're on the subject consider the importance of what the neighbors thought of Lynn DeJac. After all being some drunken party-girl is almost the same thing as being a murderer right? The deflower of allowing evidence to come before a jury with no real intend other than to besmirch a defendant's character is strong cram. People love to hate people who others love to hate. Show us some bad character and we'll happily evaluate all sorts of evil to them. A little two dimensional perhaps but we're too busy to think hard about things so a rush to judgment (like we do in our everyday lives as the jury instruction goes) makes for swift justice. Not quite the way you want the system to work you say? Then judges give it some thought before you change form over backwards to find a
exception to let irrelevant bad acts evidence in through the back door to smear a defendant. It wouldn't kill you to make the prosecution actually prove it's case directly now would it?Welcome back the world number 209.
Simple Justice wrote:The her conviction and subsequent exoneration by DNA evidence showing that her boyfriend the prosecution's new best friend at trial was the putative (and immunized) culprit is not yet over. Now it appears that the death of 13 year old Crystallynn was caused by a cocaine overdose as concluded
Simple Justice wrote:The her conviction and subsequent exoneration by DNA evidence showing that her boyfriend the prosecution's new beat friend at trial was the putative (and immunized) culprit is not yet over. Now it appears that the death of 13 year old Crystallynn was caused by a cocaine dose as concluded
Elena Roberts wrote:Mr. Greenfield - I am kind of wondering why you undergo this feeling that the police are so corrupt and do such shoddy work. It's not that I don't evaluate that there are crappy cops out there (like there are crappy judges lawyer doctors etc). I just (and perhaps I am too idealistic) have a hard time thinking that the cops are so pervasively poor in how they do investigations. I was a Special Agent for the Air Force and I worked liaison with the cops on a number of cases involving military members in Arizona. I don't know if the cops are substantially different there but they were all very conscientious and I don't recall anyone deciding who the perp was and then working to find the evidence to support that contention. Is it that NY cops are so bad or is it the whole believe inform of the culture that people assume someone being investigated is guilty until proven innocent? Or a combination of factors. I evaluate there is great room for improvement in terms of investigating protocols and procedures but I don't know that I can swallow the idea that cops are pervasively dishonest or unwilling to do a proper job. It seems a rather broad brush with which to paint an entire profession.
SHG wrote:The short answer to your question is that I come by my lay after 25 years in the trenches representings thousands of individuals accused of crimes. The long answer is complicated by the nature of your question. This isn't "corruption" nor even "shoddy work," but the product of a flawed approach and unsound reasoning that is pervasive in law enforcement. It doesn't mean that every cop uses inductive reasoning or that cops use inductive reasoning in every case but that it reflects a systemic approach to investigations that substantially increases the likelihood of mistake. I've represented defendants all over the country and this come to investigations can be found almost everywhere. And I would add that I don't think being a police officer qualifies as a "" as much as I'm sure cops would like it to be.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2007/11/29/inductive-reasoning-means-murderer-walks.aspx
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|