It is useless because those who are opposed to the DP are, for the most part, "true believers" who will not change their minds no matter what.

Notice MTI's repsonse to my question:

"Assuming, arguendo, that we could design a system that is 100% fail-safe in that it guarantees that people convicted of a capital offense are rightfully convicted, would you still oppose the DP?"

He wouldn't give a straight answer to the question (not that I expected him to). Instead, he went off on some tangent about how our system is not color-blind. I have probably tried more jury trials than most of the lawyers here. (Not bragging, it is just a function of my chosen professional track).

Except for the bizarre instances, like in the OJ trial, where the jury refused to convict OJ (in spite of all the DNA and blood evidecne) because the nearly all-black jury had an ax to grind against the white man; I think that most jurors ar fair enough, and intelligent enough, to guarantee a good result. And then, on top of that, there is the entire appellate process. So even if the jury screws up and even if the prosecutor screws up and even if the trial judge screws up and even if the defnese attorney screws up, there is a whole new layer of scrutiny.

In fact, let me go one step further (as long as I am riding this pony). If there is any racism in modern-day American trials it is black against white and not the other way around. I firmly believe that present-day white jurors tend to be fairier towards black defendants than black jurors are towards white defendants. White carry all that heavy burden of "white guilt" over the perceived sins of their forefathers. So white jurors bend over backwards to be fair and impartial. Black jurors don't give white defendants the same consideration, In fact, many black jurors tend to give a free pass to black defendants. The OJ trial is only one instance.

Just look at the news. While society has roundly condemned the actions of QB Michael Vick, blacks in Atlanta, together with the Atlanta NAACP, have made it a point of bending over backwards to express support for him. They all get on TV and hide behind the "presumption of innocence" argument and spout things like "he (Vick) is innocent until proven guilty." (Incidentally, that statement is incorrect. A defendant is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." He is IS NOT innocent until proven guilty. It is plain stupid to say that a person IS innocent until proven guilty. At trial you are either guilty or innocent of the crime that you are accused of. The trial starts with the presuumption of innocence and not with the "status" of innocence. It is up to the prosecutor to bring out sufficient evidence to establish the defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt--thanks Botnst for poinitng this out. That is a big difference that most people fail to grasp. )

Where were those same NAACP leaders, and other members of the black community, when the Duke lacrosse players were being pilloried by the press in general, and by the black community in specific. But I digress.

I guess that is a roundabout way of saying that the thread is useless because the opponents of the DP have their agenda which has nothing to do with fairness and truth. That's the way it is and that is the way it shall remain.

Perhaps I have been spoiled by California's legal system. But as far as I am concerned, and as far as I have seen, the system here is as color blind as you can get--except when black jurors sit in judgment of people like OJ.

Dee8go, you have mentioned Grisham's book in other occasions. I am going to have to read it. Then I can opine on the merits of his research and the validity of his conclusions. Until then, I remain highly skeptical of anything that comes out of his pen.

OK, I am off the pony now.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

Tank, that website is anti-death penalty. I am familiar with its content.

You must take what they say with a grain of salt.

You should also take a look at the pro-DP sites sponsored by the relatives of murder and rape victims.

BTW, not to change the topic, but how is the weather in Columbus in late August? I am going to be flying there on my way to touring the Air Force National Museum in Dayton.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

I agree with all of this, but I just can't assume that most people won't change their minds. I have changed mine on some pretty serious issues, a couple of which I won't go into on this forum for fear of getting shunned

btw, SLCC is honoring Vick this week at their annual dinner. Hillary and Obama are speaking at the event as well.

we would never shunn you.

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

JD, you are a lawyer and more importantly, you try to keep an open mind. So do I. Heck, I've found myself agreeing with that old hippie Carl on some important issues. (And I mean "old hippie" in the nicest possible way).

But not everyone is like that. Chris (Zeus) and I have "talked" abou tthis.

Oh well...

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

Yeah, I would love to have a beer with you and ole cmac. I have a friend that moves around from Hermosa/Redondo/Manhattan/Newport Beach that I used to visit quite a bit, but since the two daughters, my non-family travel budget has taken a nose dive But you can bet if I can score a depo or national counsel meeting or something in LA I will get in touch with you guys.

I will indulge your fantasy. When the system is 100% certain of the conviction of the perpetrator in a capital case, my objection to the death penalty will change and I would likely support it where the penalty is warranted. Do let me know that that system is in operation.

I watched the Couey trial on court tv (quite a bit of it anyway) and have watched several dp trials in person and participated in one as an attorney. I am convinced Couey is guilty and know my client was. Would there be an instance in which you had observed a trial or the guy had plead to the crime that you would endorse the dp? (for a crime similar or identical to couey's)

My objection is to the flaws in the system, not individual circumstances or anecdotes. It can be quite amazing how observers of a trial may not know the "whole story." This I also know from personal experience.

As a licensed (Hawaii and soon in Arizona) and practicing participant in the US legal system, I have seen the system work well and also fall flat on its face. It is a good system, better than most, but hardly one that deserves the trust of not putting innocents to death.

Despite claims that I have dodged answers, I have yet to hear a response from death penalty proponents of what an acceptable error rate is.

That is a standard even higher than reasonable doubt, which must therefore include, unreasonable doubt. Am I wrong?

B

So does your support depend on what the definition of is, is?

"Likely" and "warranted."

Well, is it likely that you will support the DP?

Is it possibly that you will supoort the DP?

Or is it probably that you will supoort the DP?

And when do you think it would be warranted? For a mass murderer? For a rapist? For someone who rapes and kill a young person? What about killing an old person who would have died anyway in a few years? No DP for the killer?

The one reason most people don't like or trust lawyers is because of answers like "depends" or "depends what is is."

I will answer your question straight out, no BS and no qualifiers.

Zero margin of error. That is the acceptable margin of error for me.

And that is why I love my job so much. As a prosecutor IF I am not convinced of the evidence, I don't have to prosecute the accused. In fact, as a prosecutor I also represent the accused because my ethical obligations as a prosecutor mandate me to "do right." So if I uncover exculpatory evidence I have an obligation (the "Brady" rule) to turn it over to the defense or risk personal liability and/or disbarment. Attorneys on the other side of the aisle do not have to turn in inculpatory evidence. In fact, their ethical obligations are the opposite of mine and IF they turned inculpatory evidence to me, they could get disbarred as well.

Although I cannot personally vouch for my case during closing argument (that would be improper argument) I can tell you that I have never prosecuted a single person that I was not personally convinced was guilty of the crime charged. I have refused to file cases where the evidence did not add up. And I have dismissed cases after subsequently discovered evidence has convinced me of the accused's innocence.

I have not tried a capital case. From a purely "intellectual" view, a rape or child molestation case is far more difficult to prove than a murder case; I like the challenge of the tougher cases.

But I trust the system enough, I trust my evidence enough and I trust myself enough that if I tried a DP case, it would only be of when the defendant richly deserves it.

BTW, and not to change the subject, does Hawaii have reciprocity with Arizona. I've thought about getting licensed in another state(s) so that when I retire from this gig I can do a little legal/consulting work somewhere other than California. I just don't feel like taking another Bar exam though.

I don't have a problem with someone who is opposed to the DP on moral, religious or intellectual grounds. I just happen to have greater faith and trust in the system than you do.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

There is no depends, or likely or suppose when it comes to DNA testing- it is or it isn't.

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

You are not wrong.

This is the instruction that jurors receive from the judge regarding "reasonable doubt."

I will now explain the presumption of innocence and the People's burden of proof. The defendant has pleaded not guilty to the charge[s]. The fact that a criminal charge has been filed against the defendant is not evidence that the charge is true. You must not be biased against the defendant just because he has been arrested, charged with a crime, or brought to trial.

A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the People must prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, unless I specifically tell you otherwise.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

In deciding whether the People have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. Unless the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal and you must find him not guilty.

Botnst, your take on the definition of reasonable doubt is correct.

Notice two other things:

1. The defendant is "presumed" innocent until proven guilty (and not "innocent until proven guilty"); and

2. If the prosecution fails to prove its case, the defendant is not found "innocent" he is merely found to be not guilty.

For non-lawyers this means that an acquittal is not the same thing as a factual finding of innocence. An acquittal simply means that the prosecution did not prove its case or that the jury, for whatever reasons, was not convinced.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

None. DNA is as powerful a tool for exonerating the innocent as it is for convicting the guilty.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

Working backwards:
Currently we are having a heat wave. It's 105ish with the heat index, and pretty humid. It feels like I'm back in DC in August. I don't know how long it'll last, but last year's August was reasonable - mid/high 80's for the most part.

A source is a source. There's no real way to have a dialogue if the information is contested. Is there anything factually wrong from them?



These were pulled from a debate about the DP:
"In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."
- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990

The numbers to go along with it:

Since 1976 (the year the moratorium was lifted), there have been 220 interracial murderers put to death.

In 12 cases, a white man received the death penalty and was executed for killing a black man.
In 218 cases, a black man received the death penalty and was executed for killing a white man.

Here's one example that doesn't involve any complicated numbers:

In preparing for the penalty phase of an African-American defendant's trial, a white judge in Florida said in open court: [B]"Since the n****er mom and dad are here anyway, why don't we go ahead and do the penalty phase today instead of having to subpoena them back at cost to the state." Peek was executed and his appeal denied [Peek v. Florida, 488 So.2d 52, 56 (Fla. 1986)]


"The researchers examined a large sample of the murders which were eligible for the death penalty in the state between 1983 and 1993. The researchers found that, even after controlling for case differences, blacks in Philadelphia were substantially more likely to get the death penalty than other defendants who committed similar murders. Black defendants faced odds of receiving a death sentence that were 3.9 times higher than other similarly situated defendants." (David Baldus, George Woodsworth, published in the Cornell Law Review, Fall of 1998)



My biggest concern, and I think it should be everyone's, is that the DP may be misapplied. I think it should be sought in fewer cases.

__________________
1984 300TD