And this prosecutor may not have an election to worry about with this debacle of a case, but he does appear to be salvaging career reputation, which, most Americans eventually figure out, is sadly worth more than a citizen, be they guilty or innocent.

The Defense attack on the alleged confession is easy: the police put the document in front of him and said sign this and we can all go home, but didn’t tell him what it was or what it said. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that is exactly what happened.

As to your point on the sufficiency standard, I agree you’ve stated it correctly, but I don’t think it changes anything. Right now, if a child’s body is full of DNA from the defendant’s semen, the defendant has no chance of challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. After the hypothetical Hobbs opinion, an appellate court would have held that a reasonable juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the presence of another person’s semen in a child’s body did not exculpate a defendant whose DNA was not found on the body. In other words, a reasonable juror could conclude, under the state’s theory, that semen in the child’s body doesn’t prove that the semen came from the real killer, because people have sex in public places and thus the semen could somehow have been accidentally ingested by the child prior to his or her death.

Now imagine the next case, where a child’s body is found in a park, full of semen carrying DNA, and the police are eventually able to arrest a suspect based solely on the DNA match. Depending on the wording of our hypothetical Hobbs opinion, that defendant will have at least a fighting chance of arguing that the evidence against him is insufficient as a matter of law, because as a matter of law there is at least a reasonable possibility that the semen could have been ingested by the child accidentally, following earlier sexual activity or masturbation by the defendant in the park, and thus as a matter of law there is a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt.

Even describing this sequence of events makes it sound crazy, but that’s only because of how crazy the prosecutor’s theory is in the Hobbs case. It might be different if the prosecutor was saying that Hobbs had acted with an unknown accomplice, and the presence of that unknown accomplice explains that mystery DNA and semen in the child’s body. But, as far as I can tell from what Radley has posted, that is not the State’s theory (at least not yet).

Final point – I agree Hobbs has a decent shot at acquittal, but its not guaranteed. Jurors do strange things, and I think a good number of them will not be able to get past the fact that Hobbs apparently admitted to killing his own daughter in a gruesome manner. They will imagine themselves in a similar situation, and will say to themselves (and each other), “I don’t care how tired I was – I would never confess to killing my own child.”

Of course. Man, things just get better and better here in Illinois. Mermel clearly has a short memory. Remember why we had that nasty old death penalty moratorium, Michael. No it wasn’t just John Burge, it was shit like this too.

If you read the Escobedo v. Illinois decision, there is a statement about the inadequacy of a criminal justice system that becomes overly reliant on the confession. You could expand on that by including eyewitness identifcation. Physical evidence, however, is a different matter. As the famed criminalist Paul Kirk said, this evidence cannot perjure itself. It is what it is, though it can be misinterpreted. Advances in forensic science have made it possible to move past this kind of shabby police work, but folks like Mermel just want to drag us back to the bad old days.

They are then taken into separate rooms and grilled, in this aggressive tag-team manner, until they sign a confession which may include the firearm theft and possibly other things. (This should take two days, at most.) All of the confessions are then posted on a board and the students are invited to figure out which of their classmates really stole the weapon and/or enjoy sex with goats.

One man’s torture is another man’s walk in the park. Any time you deprive someone of sleep and force them through adversarial thought games designed to weaken their resolve… you are torturing them. Some men would just buck up and sit quietly, others would fall into the trap of engaging the detectives in the word games, others will harbor fears that can be exploited by the unscrupulous.

Clue up! THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. And the police apparently made no attempt to actually find the killer, they just grabbed the most convenient guy they thought would confess and ran with it.

As to knowing ‘details’ of the crime, that’s bullshit. Only if you could prove, through 100% videotaping all interactions with the suspect and using blind investigators (Investigators with no knowledge of the crime) can you claim beyond a reasonable doubt that the information was not provided by the police.

Given that those who prepared the confession for him to sign also knew the details (they investigated the crime, after all), we have two independent potential sources and no way of knowing the source of the details.

Combine that with DNA evidence that excludes the apparent confessor from committing the crimes that would result in the subsequent murder of the little girl (why kill her if you weren’t the one who just raped her?), a strong case for his innocence can be made. I’d take it to trial and expect to win.

If I were a prosecutor, I would not take this case to trial, and would likely dismiss on my own motion. There is no statute of limitations on murder, and given the shaky evidence I have at this point, I would not blow my one shot at a conviction on such a total loser. Over time, I could either develop a better case (unlikely) or actually find a better candidate for the murder (perhaps the DNA match).

Let me put it to you this way: if someone else turned up who matched the DNA profile, wouldn’t you think he is the prime candidate for the murder, no matter what this man says? I certainly would. That being the case, at the very least, I find it unlikely that the state can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The DNA evidence absolves Hobbs of some horrific acts but it does NOT mean that he has no connection to what happened.

Do you propose that Hobbs not be prosecuted?

“Of course, if one confession is false, then perhaps others confessions used to convict suspects might be false too. “

Randy, you can’t be serious. I mean… a false confession? In Illinois? That’s crazy talk, man!

It’s not like questionable interrogations and hamfisted prosecutions gave a former Illinois governor pause, and moved him to reduce the sentences of every prisoner on the state’s death row in one fell swoop. I mean, if something like *that* had happened I’d be right behind you on this, but…

…oh, wait…

Carry on ;)

If this case were appealed based on the sufficiency of the evidence, then the appellate court would have to look at the evidence presented at trial and determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state (the appellee), any rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

That is a very fact specific inquiry, so even if the case were accepted on appeal and disposed of by a published opinion, it would still not stand for very much.

@ #12: I am placing my faith in the defendant’s lawyer. I am a lawyer (not licensed in Illinois, or in 48 other states!), and I don’t think that any barely competent first-year could lose a case where DNA evidence shows that someone not his client committed the crime. Juries do some strange things sometimes, but they have surprisingly good bullshit detectors and would not buy this prosecutor’s story.

NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE!!!!!!

Ever. Never. Ask for your lawyer and shut up. Don’t play ball, don’t think that if they just hear your side of the story they’ll let you go, don’t figure you have nothing to hide. None of that matters.

Convictions are for prosecutors. Justice is for suckers.

I weep for the Death of our Republic

I don’t. You can’t build a stable society if the dilapidated and discredited structures of state governance and violence still stand.

Take a look at Illinois vs. Mermel [...]

Zero

I think you meant take a look at Illinois vs. Hobbs. Mermel is the prosecutor. Hobbs in the the defendant.

True, sadly. We can dream, though…

It says “We’re so incompetent at investigation, our only available tactic is to grab the first guy we think will confess and subject them to psychological torture until they do”.

This cowardly, immoral, and more wrong than you can shake a stick at approach is made possible by the fact that you don’t HAVE to make the actual killer confess… all you have to do is pick anyone with even an ancillary connection to the crime that you think will confess.

No physical evidence should equal jury nullification and a ton of bad press for the prosecution.