This entry was posted
on Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 at 3:53 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
#49 Police harassment on a daily basis is a given. He’s not going to be able to walk out his front door without a Terry Stop. And I wouldn’t put it past them to plant drugs in his home so they can get him in prison any way they can.
Let the questioning occur, but monitor it to ensure the data is related to the case.
This exact line of reasoning is what’s been used in the past to forbid evidence pertaining to Hayne’s incompetence.
There was a case where Hayne was testifying, and the defense wanted to show that video (a difference case) where Hayne created teeth marks on the deceased with the suspect’s dental mold.
The judge denied the request, saying it was a different case, and thus irrelevant, basically telling them to come up with video of Hayne manufacturing evidence in this particular case – or fuck off. I seem to recall that defendant was convicted, but I’m not sure.
This case is going to be decided before opening arguments, at voir dire. Hopefully somebody in that room will have second or third hand experience with the local PD and be smart enough to not admit it.
This case is what led me to this website, and while I’ve soured on other aspects of it (I hold a less favorable opinion of libertarianism than when I first visited) your work on this case is top notch, and deserves as every bit of praise.
//Let the questioning occur, but monitor it to ensure the data is related to the case.//
The problem is that judges will often claim evidence is “not relevant” precisely because it *IS* relevant–just not in the way they’d like. If someone is convicted in a jury trial, but would have been acquitted had the jury been aware of some fact the judge kept from them, the person was not convicted by the jury–the person was illegitimately convicted by the judge (in violation of the Sixth Amendment).
If courts actually followed the Constitution, Cory Maye and Ryan Frederick would have been allowed to ask the jury to determine, among other things:
-1- Bearing in mind that the jury may be aware of things a warrant- judge was not, did the police in fact have probable cause to believe that (a) a particular crime was committed, and (b) a search of the defendant’s particular premises would find some particular evidence of that crime.
-2- Was the warrant issued on the basis of sworn statements which truthfully and non-deceptively related the personal knowledge of the person making them. Again, the jury may have information which the warrant judge does not.
-3- Was the search conducted in reasonable fashion to justify risk or harm to persons or property. A warrant judge cannot be expected to have looked at this since the search won’t have been conducted until after his involvement was complete.
Searches which do not comply with all three of the above requirements are illegitimate. People who illegitimately break into occupied properties with the intention of accosting anyone who might be inside are robbers, regardless of their employment.
John Jenkins |
November 18th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
@Supercat: I’m curious as to the source of your expert opinion on the rules of evidence in criminal trials. I won’t ask about your interesting constitutional theories. Just the rules of evidence.
The interesting thing about Supercat’s observations is that questions of this sort will be presented to the jury any Cory Maye retrial, because all of the evidence concerning what appears to be fraud in procuring the search warrant can be introduced to negate the “official capacity” element of the capital murder charge. The Court of Appeals didn’t reach this issue, and it seems pretty apparent that the State would have a hard time excluding all of the defense’s evidence on a key element of the offense.
I think there has been some confusion in the comments above about what the Court of Appeals actually said about the search warrant issue. The Court of Appeals rejected issue VII in Maye’s opening brief, which was the argument that the original warrant application on its face was insufficient to establish probable cause. The Court of Appeals (it appears quite deliberately) never ruled on issue VI, which is that the testimony obtained from the Gentry brothers shows that Ron Jones lied on the original warrant application, and Jones’s conduct in this regard is evidence that can be introduced to defeat the official capacity element of the capital murder charge.