TheAgitator.com
What a Railroading Looks Like
Monday, January 19th, 2009This, from the Virginian-Pilot’s latest article on the upcoming Ryan Frederick trial, actually threw a chill down my spine:
Also subpoenaed for the trial were five jail inmates who evidently had conversations with Frederick about the shooting. One of them is Marlon Reed, a Norfolk gang leader who already got one break on his sentence after testifying against co-defendants in his federal racketeering case.
I’ll make a prediction: At trial, we’ll hear about how the slight guy who has wept at nearly every public appearance since his arrest (one year ago yesterday, by the way) was openly boasting to other inmates about the cop he bagged. Or maybe they’ll say he tried to sell them marijuana.
To retrofit a phrase, once the state has determined you’re a nail in need of smashing, there’s really no limit to the number of hammers at its disposal.
Marlon Reed offered $20,000 to have someone killed, and they’re offering him a reduced sentence to help them convict Frederick? The drug warriors have dropped any pretense of wanting justice, fairness, or anything more than more federal grants to continue their insane war.
This man has no record and was not growing pot.So why would the cops investigate him in the firt place?The only reason,to me ,is two career criminals got caught and made up a story to make a deal.So,with out verifying the facts they raid a man”s home.Poor pollice work in my view.Now the cops act like the crooks,making up facts to cover their asses.Of course it’s eaiser if you use the magic words ‘drug dealer’.It seems these phrases work.’Drug dealer’,'drunk driver’,sex offender,these words ensure the full weight of the law and have been expanded to the point that people are being arrested that were never a danger to anyone.When 16 year old girls are being arrested as sex offenders for sending nude pictures to their boy friends we need to stop an wonder how the hell we got here.
So that’s their big plan? Five real criminals will get out of prison early so they can convict this innocent man?!
Everyone involved with this prosecution needs to be put on trial for obstruction of justice, malicious prosecution or whatever other such laws exist in that jurisdiction.
I’ll guess that the defense will somehow be prohibited from mentioning that all these jailhouse snitches are in fact paid for their testimony via reduced sentences. That would seem to be par for the course.
blockquote>#3 ktc2
So that’s their big plan? Five real criminals will get out of prison early so they can convict this innocent man?!
Why not? Why shouldn’t they? It’s not like there’s much likelihood that they will suffer any repercussions for setting up fake jail house snitches. They’re probably so used to doing stuff like that it’s just all in a day’s work.
I’m speaking only about the bad cops, of course. As we all know, the vast majority of cops are dedicated, law abiding, and honest.
Hahaha! Just kidding about that last part.
Since America is said to be a “Christian nation,” it’s high time our legal system started acting like one by protecting the innocent against such false testimony:
16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, 17 the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, 19 then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.
-Deuteronomy 19:16-20
I’m a believer in ‘where there’s smoke, there’s fire,’ but I’m hoping that’s not the case here. as tragic a case as Ryan Frederick has been, this shows that this can get much worse.
The government really doesn’t care how many lives it ruins.
http://www.rightklik.net/
It’s one of the problems of an adversarial system that prosecutors are judged solely on whether they win.
No doubt there are hundreds of prosecutors who agonise over shady tactics and refrain from the more sinister ones but, because of the way things are structured, they aren’t the ones who get further up the chain or get given the high profile cases.
All that wouldn’t be such a problem if defence teams were similarly incentivised and funded but, if you need the state to defend you, they aren’t.
Moving away from an adversarial system is probably unrealistic given that those have huge problems of their own, so beefing up defence funding is both an imperative from a moral point of view and also a long term cost saver in keeping innocent and tax paying citizens from becoming criminalised (and a burden on the state).
Unfortunately away from high profile cases I’d imagine that things are probably worse rather than better than they are for Fredericks because public opinion and the media aren’t there to act as a counterbalance to the more alarming prosecutorial excess.
The problem with our justice system isn’t that it’s based on an adversarial contest. The problem is that juries come from a population that’s conditioned to think that the government are the good guys. They’re devoid of a healthy sense of skepticism about anything government does. Sure they joke about government ineptitude and bureaucracy, but they’ve grown up believing that the government knows what to do and will protect us from all the stuff they tell us we need to be fearful of. Government is the father and we’re the children.
Juries want to convict. They want to believe the government can be trusted and is doing the right thing. They will even ignore evidence to the contrary if it’s not too blatant.
This is one of the reasons why religion can be beneficial. When you have to answer to a higher power for the lives your career wrecked, suddenly these decisions appear a lot more cut-and-dry.
Dave, unfortunately if that is a problem then it’s likely impossible to fix directly (and changing laws to work around people because they can’t be trusted would be pretty risky in terms of the extra freedoms it could erode).
I think that with a defence funded and motivated as well as prosecutors are the problem would at least be mitigated because in part it’s the knowledge that juries will rarely see evidence of government impropriety that encourages it.
Unfortunately I’m not holding my breathe that it’s on anyone’s political radar because I imagine the law and order crowd would rip it to shreds.
#11 Mike T-
I see your point that, ‘This is one of the reasons why religion can be beneficial.’ Can you point to any instances where this has been the case. Throughout history, religion has been used as a coercive force to control people, not as a force for rulers to exercise restraint…
The LEO’s used two rats to set Ryan up, and now they plan to use more rats to convict him. Does anyone else see a pattern here?
I couldn’t help but notice the anti-statist slant of the last paragraph of this post.
Follow it all the way now.
There are plenty of cases every day of people doing the right thing because they’re of a particular religious bent, but it’s hardly going to make news.
True justice is an extremely Judeo-Christian belief. Proverbs is filled with sayings that lament over the lack of justice given to the poor (nothing’s changed in 3,000 years) and also pointing out that God despises such. There are very few things in the Bible that God “despises”, but unfairly judging people and false testimony (which go hand in hand) are specifically mentioned and repeated.
People claiming to be Christians have done a lot of wrong in this country, and in many ways are to blame for the current war on drugs. But none of this has anything to do with Christianity, and the railroading of Ryan Frederick is anathema to nearly all religious faiths of which I am aware.
I spoke to Amanda Arakelyan (Ryan Frederick’s sister) the other day – she speaks to Mr. Frederick every day, by phone. He told her that he has seen the prosecution’s witness list, and that there are several names on the list that he is not familiar with. This may (this is conjecture) account for the five jailhouse detainees who are on the witness list (mentioned in the Virginian-Pilot article).
An acquaintance of mine (who has spent some time in the Chesapeake jail) told me that Mr. Frederick has been in solitary confinement (ostensibly for his, “protection”) since he was arrested (solitary confinement prisoners wear red coveralls, regular prisoners wear orange). He has no direct contact with other prisoners, but those in solitary (up to 20, according to my acquaintance) can talk to each other thru the ventilation ducts. The deputies (brown-shirts) who work in the jail can also listen in, on these conversations.
I’m hoping to attend the trial every day (starting tomorrow, the 20th). My wife and I manage a business, which either of us can easily manage alone, so I have the flexibility to do this. The problem may be available seating in the courtroom – the entire city (most of which seems to be on Mr. Frederick’s side) has been awaiting this trial. Mr. Broccoletti (on close observation) gives the impression of calm, rational, and very, very capable (not cocky), so Mr. Frederick is very well represented.
The other consideration is, of course, “never for a moment doubt, the efficacy of prayer.”
John Wilburn:
“My client believes in me, and he believes in God. All I know is that when the trial starts tomorrow I’ll definitely be there. I’m not too sure that the Good Lord will be so I think it best that my client look to me first.”
(from an unpublished short story)
“Can you point to any instances where this has been the case. Throughout history, religion has been used as a coercive force to control people, not as a force for rulers to exercise”
I suggest that you read Vindiciae Contras Tyrannos, written by a Huguenot during the French Religious Wars. The book was widely read in the American Colonies, especially after the Glorious Revolution when Parliament and the King began to assume powers over them which the colonists believed were unlawful under the Rights of Englishmen. The book was a powerful influence on those who signed the Declaration of Independence, before Tom Paine had even immigrated to the colonies. It provided a legal basis for separation from England.
One of the main questions it answers is when a king, who breaks Gods’ law, can be resisted by the people. It provides a powerful weapon against rulers who tyrannize the people by breaking transcendent law and the covenants the ruler made with the people to place himself below that law.
The book can be found online here:
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1579-vct.htm
Something sinister has happened to theology when, today, so many Christians mistakenly believe that they must completely subordinate themselves to civil governments who act outside the law.
I have never understood why juries believe bought testimony which is always what you get with jailhouse informants. More proof that we are not evolving but devolving.
Marty,
A wonderful thing to write on Rev. Martin Luther King Day.
Max, in a lot of the trials that I’ve read about, the jury is prohibited from knowing that the informant is getting quid pro quo for their testimony. It’s astounding.
“He has no criminal record, he must be lying; this guy has a criminal record, so he must be telling the truth.”
WTF.
For starters, how about the fact that study after study has shown that evangelical Christians are disproportionately charitable with their time and money compared to their secular counterparts? Crime also tends to be much lower in counties that have a very religious culture as well.
My father is an example of a federal agent whose religious upbringing convinced him to turn on his own when they violated the law. As he always put it, loyalty to God and doing what’s right comes before anything else like loyalty to your fellow officers and agents.
Now, I could ask you a similar question. What proof do you have that any of the secular ethics codes have ever convinced someone to do what they should be doing?
Let’s not let this devolve into a religious argument when the police state railroading an innocent man is the topic.
There really needs to be accountability for these prosecutors. Disgraceful.
This comes from a pathetically simplistic view of Romans 13. Romans 13 assumes a reasonable civil government, which is obvious when you see that Paul put the weasel words “holds no terror for those who do right” in there as a subtle qualification for Christian obedience to secular authority. Romans 13 does not apply to a terrorist state like most of the Communist ones that existed in the 20th century. It applies only to a government that is generally behaving as it should, which is a peace-maker.
Most Christians either understand Roman civilization, or modern civilization, but don’t understand both. That is why many of them think that Rome was this wild-eyed tyrannical regime, when in fact, Rome was actually very reasonable by modern standards. In fact, Rome was downright civilized in its treatment of dissidents compared to many modern regimes.
How are you going to hold them accountable? What do you want done to them?
Personally, I want to see the Mosaic Law statute I cited above codified into secular American law so that prosecutors like Ebert can be sentenced to execution for their crimes. Nothing less is justice. What the man is doing is murder, and his murder weapon is the state.
@Michael Chaney: That is incorrect. Evidence of a witness’s bias is always relevant and usually admissible. In Virginia, specifically, a defendant can introduce evidence of a prosecution witness by right, derived from the right to confront one’s accuser. See Barker v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 370, 376, 337 S.E.2d 729, 733-34 (1985); Hewitt v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 621, 623, 311 S.E.2d 112, 114 (1984).
I’ll stay out of the religious arguments, except to note that most people in the U.S. who claim to be Christians are startlingly ignorant of even the most basic Christian theology, so any advanced understanding of a text as historically dense as the Christian Bible is asking far, far too much.
As to the Frederick Trial, these sorts of witnesses are the mark of a desperate prosecutor who is looking for anything to salvage his case. I have faith in very few things, but one thing I do have faith in is a jury’s ability to discern bullshit when they hear it. If this is the best the prosecution has, I expect the jury will acquit. (Unfortunately, juries also have a tendency to take things into their own hands. Even when they think someone is not guilty of the crime charged, if they think he’s a bad guy, they will vote to convict sometimes; I don’t think that will apply here.)
That is powerful evidence for the propositions that (a) no man can be trusted with the power of life and death; and (b) the state should not be in the business of killing its citizens.
John – I’m glad to see that you can back up your position with cites. I was speaking with respect to cases that I’ve seen in the past, including some where jury members were livid after the trial to find they’d been duped by criminal jailhouse snitches. Probably TX Innocence Project stuff.
[...] a nail in need of smashing, there
One possible voir dere question:
Would you have any reservations about the credibility of a prisoner who testifies against a fellow inmate in exchange for getting out of prison a few years early?
Anyone answering in the affirmative would be excused.
I’m not a lawyer, but I would imagine there are already statutes for knowingly enticing false testimony, using burglars to circumvent search laws….etc.
Anyone with more knowledge to add about that? I am increasingly skeptical of giving the state life/death decisions, period. The more draconian the punishment for this level of corruption, the less likely it will be pursued by other state agents, it seems to me.
#21 | aland-
I have great respect for Martin Luther King and his accomplishments. Obviously, he was a man of faith and conviction. He used this to fight oppression.
My point must not have been clear- I know of few instances of principled rulers abiding by the teachings of their religion. It’s easy to to find examples where religion is used to take advantage of others.
I am skeptical of any authority, religious or political. However, I feel there are good individuals entangled throughout both.
JJ:
“That is powerful evidence for the propositions that (a) no man can be trusted with the power of life and death; and (b) the state should not be in the business of killing its citizens.”
I agree with (a).
As for (b), the sole business of the state is killing its citizens (well, robbing them, then killing them if they fail to cough up the dough).
So, since killing (or threatening to kill) its citizens is the defining characteristic of the State, what you are writing is that the State has no business existing.
That’s an argument I can get behind.
@Michael Chaney: The right of a criminal defendant to cross-examine witnesses regarding bias derives from the Sixth Amendment confrontation right and applies everywhere. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986); United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (1984); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974).
@Cynical: You’re begging the question. Even accepting that the state is robbing people when taxing them, it does not follow from the proposition that the state cannot kill its citizens that it cannot rob them. We recognize homicide and robbery as different in kind, not merely in degree.
//That is powerful evidence for the propositions that (a) no man can be trusted with the power of life and death; and (b) the state should not be in the business of killing its citizens.//
I don’t follow. Mosaic law effectively provides that a deliberate false accusation of a capital crime constitutes actual or attempted murder. It does not follow that there would be anything wrongful about a just accusation of a capital crime, nor an execution on the basis of it.
BTW, to the extent that a prosecutor limits his actions to advocacy and neither suborns perjury nor involves himself in investigations, he should IMHO be relatively immune to lawsuits in the event that a defendant happens to be innocent. Prosecutors who go beyond their limited role, however, should face much more liability.
My bigger complaint lies with judges who exclude many things as “irrelevant” not because they are, but because they aren’t. It seems to me that if a jury that knew a piece of factual information would decide to acquit someone, then almost any conviction obtained by denying that information to a jury would be unjust. On the other hand, some judges seem to think that if some information would cause a jury to acquit someone for a reason the judge wouldn’t like, the information should be withheld.
Fair enough, Marty, Agreed. :)
#9 Bernard: “It’s one of the problems of an adversarial system that prosecutors are judged solely on whether they win.”
I’ve been thinking about the structure of the courts for awhile now. I think someone on this blog once suggested that attorneys working for state governments should serve as both prosecutors and defense counsel, rotating from one position to another intermittently.
I’d like to expand on the idea a bit. Rather than electing a state’s attorney/DA, the chief judge of a jurisdiction could appoint one person to be the chief public prosecutor and another to be a chief public defender. Each of these individuals would then have a deputy or two and office staff. The rest of the lawyers would be rotated between prosectution and defense. Experienced lawyers may be assigned permanently to a specific division (ie. misdemeanor/traffic, felony, civil, family court, etc.), but they would not spend all their time prosecuting or defending. In this system, it may be more likely that attorneys would get the message that their goal should be to get to the truth, not just win the case.
Additionally, I’ve also begun to think that detectives should work for the courts rather than p.d’s. The jobs of patrol officers and detectives are really quite different, and I’ve often wondered if
we would be better served by such a system. States could require more education of detective recruits than they generally can for local police recruits. These detectives would then be trained to investigate matters for the court, which may in time lead to less prosecution-oriented investigators.
Oh well, just a thought. I wonder if anyone else has considered a similar system? I’d be interested to see if anyone has an opinion on the viability of this scenario or related ideas on how to change the system.
“Cynical: You’re begging the question. Even accepting that the state is robbing people when taxing them, it does not follow from the proposition that the state cannot kill its citizens that it cannot rob them. We recognize homicide and robbery as different in kind, not merely in degree.”
JJ, you only think I’m begging the question because you do not subscribe to the demonstrably true premise. You had to actually concede(!) that the state robs people when it taxes them! I bet that took a couple of deep breaths to hit “submit comment.”
So, granting my premise(!!!), there is nothing preventing the State from killing its people, let alone robbing them. It is simply in the State’s best interest to milk the populace and only kill them in certain specific cases, such as setting up a rival State (like an independent crime organization, be it the Mafia or Iraq) or openly defying the State’s will (like refusing to pay taxes, and by refusing I mean REFUSING, not GIVING UP AND GOING TO JAIL).
Robbery and homicide committed by the State are not only not different in degree, nor different in kind — they are the same. Robbery is food for the State, but murder is its oxygen. Without the threat of death over each of its subjects, the State ceases to exist.
“The penalty is always death.” — Mike Gogulski
http://www.nostate.com
“I’d be interested to see if anyone has an opinion on the viability of this scenario or related ideas on how to change the system.”
[Hand frantically raised and waving]
“Oooo! Ooooo! Ooo ooo ooo!!! Oooooo!
Mr. Kotttteerrrrr!”
There’s no changing this system. Scrap it.
/70s acid flashback
No, I think you’re begging the question because you assumed the proposition you set out to prove (that’s the definition after all).
Also, I believe you misread me. My point was that even if I granted your premise, you could not get to where you want to go. I do not grant you your premise in fact. Nice try though.
Look, I know you spend most of your time with people who agree with you, so you don’t think your argument has any flaws and that you don’t have to grapple with the ideas of others, but at least try to argue in good faith.
#38 Helmut-
‘Oh well, just a thought. I wonder if anyone else has considered a similar system? I’d be interested to see if anyone has an opinion on the viability of this scenario or related ideas on how to change the system.’
I haven’t considered this and it’s intriguing. I’m gonna chew on some of this for a while… thanks for the post!
“No, I think you’re begging the question because you assumed the proposition you set out to prove (that’s the definition after all).”
OK, let’s go over this step by step.
John Jenkins wrote: “The state should not be in the business of killing its citizens.”
OK, before we move on, please enlighten me as to what the business of the State is. Please address what happens if the State fails to defend its monopoly on violence within its territorial area. What does it say about the State if the individuals who live in its territory do not obey and are not met with violence to force obedience? Does this not mean the State ceases to exist?
I’m not going to waste more 0′s and 1′s explaining the absolutely obvious. If you don’t get that the State has life-and-death power over you conditional on your obedience to its dictates, then you are beyond reach, John.
But just to wrap things up, back to our syllogism:
To which I replied: “the sole business of the state is killing its citizens (well, robbing them, then killing them if they fail to cough up the dough).” As I just demonstrated above.
So, since killing (or threatening to kill) its citizens is the defining characteristic of the State, what you are writing is that the State has no business existing.
How did your refutation go again? Again, real slow, a State that does not defend its monopoly on violence, that permits disobedience from those that live in its territorial area, is no longer a State. It “has no business existing” to use your words.
“I do not grant you your premise in fact. Nice try though.
Whether or not you admit it, you do actually grant my premise. It is not even my premise. It is a fact of the natural order of things, just as gravity is. You just choose to ignore it.
“Look, I know you spend most of your time with people who agree with you, so you don’t think your argument has any flaws and that you don’t have to grapple with the ideas of others, but at least try to argue in good faith.”
If there ever was a clearer example of projection than this, I am not aware of it.
Let me know how it feels to have sand from your scalp to the base of your throat, John. I’m curious.
I’ve never been to prison so I won’t pretend to have any idea of how things work. However, at a guess, I’d think that you’d be better off putting a tough face on as an inmate. Maybe this wouldn’t go as far as prancing around boasting about killing cops, but I don’t know that I’d bother denying it to fellow inmates. Let them think that you’re crazy and capable of killing if it gets you a little leeway.
Of course then things have a way of backfiring once they start putting these people on the stand.