You may remember the case of ErnieLopez, who was convicted of horrifically raping a 6 month old baby girl to
death. He was sentenced to 60 years, and served 9 of them until it was decided
that hey, what do you know, her injuries were more likely caused by a severe
blood disorder. He was released in early 2012, but prosecutors announced that
they would try the case again.
Well, it looks like they hooked him
up with a plea deal, felony injury to a child, in exchange for time served. How
did he injure the child? What did he do that left broken blood vessels that
looked like bruises all over her tiny body, and blood oozing from every orifice?
Well, it was something he admitted to during his first interrogation; He may
have been a little rough changing her diaper.
“Last year, Lopez explained that the
first time he went to trial he believed innocent people don't get convicted.
Then he spent nine years in prison. This time, he would have had key medical
experts and a more developed defense. Yet he still faced the risk of
conviction.
"I don't think any one of us believes he would be
convicted," Heather Kirkwood, an attorney who handled Lopez's appeal, said
earlier this week. "But in these cases, there's no guarantee."”
Is it logical to believe that
injuries from being raped to death could be mimicked by a diaper change? If the
prosecutors truly believed he was guilty, why offer the plea deal? Why allow
this guy, a monster in their eyes, to roam free? On the flip side if they, like
I, had any doubt about how someone could cause injuries like that by changing a
diaper, why force him to take a plea deal? Lopez would have been eligible for around
$720,000 for his years of wrongful incarceration;
“Under the
terms of the plea agreement, he is prohibited from proclaiming his innocence or
encouraging anyone else to do so.”
Although part of me wishes that
Ernie Lopez would have taken his second case to trial and proven his innocence,
I can’t fault him for caving. When those whose job it is to defend an
individual from the depredations of the state come out and say, “Take the deal”,
how can you have any confidence in the justice system? Coy was offered a plea
deal before he went to trial; five years for admitting something to that he has
said for the last 11 years that he didn’t do. I suspect the rational behind
that offer was similar to that behind Lopez’s deal. “Due process be damned; we really, reeeeeeeally
think he’s guilty, but we can’t prove it. Maybe we can use the threat of a
trial to get some small win out of this.”
6 comments:
Great article. I think a lot of people are backed into corners with scare tactics. They are forced to weight this vs that.....as A DA...I wouldn't be proud of winning cases that way. So may steps along the way that allow such huge injustices to occur. Scared, people do nothing. Uneducated, people do nothing. Sometimes.....we must fight. Those fights that lead to victories, help uncover the bullshit tactics that are used to convict so many.
ernie lopez needs to die
Anon 11:37:
Thank you for that thoughtful and carefully weighed contribution.
So what would happen if Carlos had taken the deal? Would he have 5 years and then more to come for the charges?
Innocent until proven guilty...Um not in the state of Texas. So here is another example. Except Lopez was released n re tried n instead of proving his innocence n admitting to ruinin the life n reputation of man who was wrongfully convicted, he took a plea never to discuss his innocence n time served. So know the state of Texas don't have to pay his wrongful conviction lawsuit. Wat da fuk is really goin on in Texas...I mean damn!!! It sounds like a big fukin racket to me!!!!
A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. Gandhi once said that. Carlos Coy was a man who lived that. Rather than admit guilt when he knew he was innocent he stood his ground. For that he was given more time, however, he gained the respect of many.
Post a Comment