I want to draw your attention to a
great post by Grits for Breakfast; It’s about SB 12, which would allow prosecutors
to bring up unrelated, unproven accusations during criminal trials involving charges
of sexual assault. I’m not going to talk about it here, because I really want
you to head over to Grits and read his excellent description of this piss-poor
piece of legislation.
Seriously, read it before you
finish this post.
You done? Great. Did you read the
comments?
If you did, you saw this gem from
an anon @6:50:
“A
good prosecutor attempts to convince the jury that the defendant should be
convicted because he or she committed the crime in question.
A
weak prosecutor attempts to convince the jury that the defendant should be
convicted because he or she is a bad person.”
Eloquent in its simplicity, that
quote describes so much of the testimony that we see in newspaper articles from
the time, and Coy’s Habeas Corpus; how Coy was accused of...
...Killing Jane Doe’s Grandfather
by proxy; they said he heard about the abuse, had a heart attack and died.
...Grooming his daughter for future
sexual assaults; there was no proof offered, of course, only the ‘feelings’ of
state-sanctioned experts.
...Naming his company Dope House
Records.
...Being rude, doing drugs, and
beating women according to Jane Doe’s mother who, as we know, had a near photographically-accurate
memory for things that supported her case.
...and my personal favorite, that he had
the audacity to pay money to a
defense lawyer! Imagine!
They even tried to introduce the
same type of testimony mentioned by Grits during the trial; The Houston
Chronicle does not appear to have this article in their archive, but this article's been
re-posted in multiple places:
“Prosecutors
asked the judge to allow testimony from several other alleged victims who
claimed Coy assaulted them. A decision is expected Thursday.
"It’s
certainly not right and the judge is seeing their desperation of trying to try
other cases in this case as exactly what it is — it’s a desperate effort to
save a case they see failing before their eyes," Lewis said.”
When they failed to get unproven
accusations admitted into his trial, they simply brought them up during the
sentencing phase:
“Andrews
and co-prosecutor Denise Oncken reminded the jury that there were seven other
charges of sexual assault pending against Coy.
Lewis
countered that the prosecution was basing its case on the quantity of evidence,
rather than the quality.”
As Grits for Breakfast put it, “...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.”
1 comment:
It's getting way out of hand. Using past accusations as evidence? That's crazy. For one thing, hearsay should not be seen as strong evidence. People have to understand that alot of people will say and do anything to get their way with no remorse. The only way the system will get better is if it's completely restructured with balance.FREE SPM!!!-beanieman
Post a Comment