Um, I'm all for the "Informed Voter", but do you really think people are going to watch three hours worth of cable access television to make their decision on who to vote for?
I would hope people spend three hours to make a decision for such a position of power.
By the way, it's disingenuous for Kelly not to accept responsibility for the Guidry and Fratta reversals. As a prosecutor, her duty is "not to convict, but to see that justice is done." Seeing that justice is done imposes an affirmative obligation on a prosecutor to conduct a fair trial, i.e., one in which due process and the defendant's constitutional rights have been observed.
Guidry was reversed because his confession was deemed coerced and therefore involuntary. Siegler had a duty to investigate the legal validity of Guidry's statement. Instead, she moved to admit this unlawfully obtained evidence into trial to be used against him. In short, she did not perform her duty under the law. Whether this was the result of ignorance of the law, laziness, or malicious intent I don't know. I do know the police do not control the prosecutor's legal decisions at trial. She chose to admit the evidence, despite its invalidity. The result was, at worst, convicting innocent people and, at best, costing the taxpayers of Harris County tons of money by exercising such poor legal judgment. (There's a third guy here, so his conviction, too, will likely be set aside.)
Jigmeister (from AHCL's blog) was wrong to say the convictions were overturned as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington. They were not. As it happens, Jigmeister's error inured to the benefit of Seigler. Seeing as how this is the night before (or just now the day of) the primary, it's probably worthwhile to set the record straight on that point.
I'm concerned about the cost to the taxpayers of all the appeals. Andrea Yates being one example. They knew their witness had spoken incorrectly, they could have just given her a new trial instead of fighting it in the court of appeals.
3 comments:
Um, I'm all for the "Informed Voter", but do you really think people are going to watch three hours worth of cable access television to make their decision on who to vote for?
I would hope people spend three hours to make a decision for such a position of power.
By the way, it's disingenuous for Kelly not to accept responsibility for the Guidry and Fratta reversals. As a prosecutor, her duty is "not to convict, but to see that justice is done." Seeing that justice is done imposes an affirmative obligation on a prosecutor to conduct a fair trial, i.e., one in which due process and the defendant's constitutional rights have been observed.
Guidry was reversed because his confession was deemed coerced and therefore involuntary. Siegler had a duty to investigate the legal validity of Guidry's statement. Instead, she moved to admit this unlawfully obtained evidence into trial to be used against him. In short, she did not perform her duty under the law. Whether this was the result of ignorance of the law, laziness, or malicious intent I don't know. I do know the police do not control the prosecutor's legal decisions at trial. She chose to admit the evidence, despite its invalidity. The result was, at worst, convicting innocent people and, at best, costing the taxpayers of Harris County tons of money by exercising such poor legal judgment. (There's a third guy here, so his conviction, too, will likely be set aside.)
Jigmeister (from AHCL's blog) was wrong to say the convictions were overturned as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington. They were not. As it happens, Jigmeister's error inured to the benefit of Seigler. Seeing as how this is the night before (or just now the day of) the primary, it's probably worthwhile to set the record straight on that point.
pj
I'm concerned about the cost to the taxpayers of all the appeals. Andrea Yates being one example. They knew their witness had spoken incorrectly, they could have just given her a new trial instead of fighting it in the court of appeals.
Post a Comment