-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter NJ-Buckeye
- Start date
Gatorubet
Loathing All Things Georgia
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
Why defense attorneys hate prosecutors and you should never take what they say as true without a healthy skepticism.
The prosecution in the Casey Anthony trial made great use of the fact that a software designer, John Bradley, examined Casey Ms. Anthony's computer and determined that she had visited a site about the use of chloroform 84 times.
The scientific finding of Anthony's 84 visits to the chloroform site was repeatedly mentioned at trial to support the claim that Anthony was planning to murder her daughter Caylee. Nancy Grace made it a mantra in the months before trial.
Problem was, that designer, Mr. Bradley, later realized that his findings were flat f-ing wrong, that Anthony had NOT visited the site 84 times, but only once. Bradley immediately called a prosecutor and a Sergeant with the County Sheriff's Office via e-mail and by telephone - and told them that his prior findings were wrong.
The law requires prosecutors to disclose any evidence that suggests that the defendant that is exculpatory to the defense, i.e., that could show that the defendant is not-guilty. The prosecutor did not pass that little fact on to the defense, and they sat on that fact. Had they followed the law - the defense undoubtedly would have called Bradley to testify that the 84 visits was false.
However one feels about the verdict, we can all agree that prosecutorial misconduct is a bad thing. When the power of the State is against you, they should not cheat about scientific evidence that could put you on death row.
Why defense attorneys hate prosecutors and you should never take what they say as true without a healthy skepticism.
The prosecution in the Casey Anthony trial made great use of the fact that a software designer, John Bradley, examined Casey Ms. Anthony's computer and determined that she had visited a site about the use of chloroform 84 times.
The scientific finding of Anthony's 84 visits to the chloroform site was repeatedly mentioned at trial to support the claim that Anthony was planning to murder her daughter Caylee. Nancy Grace made it a mantra in the months before trial.
Problem was, that designer, Mr. Bradley, later realized that his findings were flat f-ing wrong, that Anthony had NOT visited the site 84 times, but only once. Bradley immediately called a prosecutor and a Sergeant with the County Sheriff's Office via e-mail and by telephone - and told them that his prior findings were wrong.
The law requires prosecutors to disclose any evidence that suggests that the defendant that is exculpatory to the defense, i.e., that could show that the defendant is not-guilty. The prosecutor did not pass that little fact on to the defense, and they sat on that fact. Had they followed the law - the defense undoubtedly would have called Bradley to testify that the 84 visits was false.
However one feels about the verdict, we can all agree that prosecutorial misconduct is a bad thing. When the power of the State is against you, they should not cheat about scientific evidence that could put you on death row.
Upvote
0
DubCoffman62
Lazy Slob
It seems that prosecutors worry more about winning cases than making sure the defendant has a fair trial. But I guess that's where the judge comes in.Gatorubet;1955894; said:
Upvote
0
Gatorubet
Loathing All Things Georgia
Well, "usual" is not usual. The judge can sanction a lawyer for not turning over stuff. Hell, Jose did not turn over stuff to the prosecution he was supposed to, like expert reports and a complete witness list. While that is bad, not turning over Brady information is more serious. A bar complaint may well be made over that. Just the news article might be enough to bring a complaint, although I have no idea how Florida initiates them, whether is has to be a formal client or lawyer initiated complaint, or whether the disciplinary counsel can open a matter themselves.Wingate1217;1956047; said:
But ya know - if a defendant is subject to possible lethal injection - you should let the other side know that your expert witness is doing a Cousin Vinnie ("Ya know everything that I said earlier - that's bullshit!")
Upvote
0
Prosecutors trying to give murderers the chair whether they did it or not, defense lawyers trying to let murderers walk whether they did it or not, and the press eating it all up for ratings and then acting indignant afterwards. Sounds about right.
Upvote
0
