Prosecutors cover up testilying in gun cases. Why?
Perhaps because a cop who lies well is a valuable asset in close
cases and keeps the prosecutor's conviction record up. It's not just
cops who are dirty in the CJ system.
>>> NYC Cops Lack Credibility in Gun Arrests: …But a closer look at
those prosecutions reveals something that has not been trumpeted: more
than 20 cases in which judges found police officers’ testimony to be
unreliable, inconsistent, twisting the truth, or just plain false. The
judges’ language was often withering: “patently incredible,” “riddled
with exaggerations,” “unworthy of belief.” …The judges’ rulings emerge
from what are called suppression hearings, in which defendants, before
trial, can argue that evidence was seized illegally. The Fourth
Amendment sets limits on the conditions that permit a search; if they
are not met, judges must exclude the evidence, even if that means
allowing a guilty person to go free… . Other than suppression, the
outrage stopped there. With few exceptions, judges did not ask
prosecutors to determine whether the officers had broken the law, and
prosecutors did not notify police authorities about the judges’
findings. The Police Department said it did not monitor the rulings.
So no officers were disciplined. <<<
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/nyregion/12guns.html?ref=nyregion&pagewanted=all
Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o-
651-523-2142
Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037) f-
651-523-2236
St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c-
612-865-7956
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
