People I’d grown up with or otherwise known for years who were with the Sheriff’s office supported Kem Kimbrough and told me good things about him. After the laughingstock Victor Hill made of the county I was more than ready to vote for someone like Kimbrough.

For a while there he lived up to his billing, and then the wheels started coming off, and now this. Just…damn.

I’m glad I left when I did. Now if I could just get my parents to leave.

1. The individual is barred from testifying in his/her official capacity (i.e., as a police officer) as a prosecution witness in a criminal case.

2. The individual is barred from testifying in his/her official capacity as a witness for either side in a criminal case.

3. The individual is barred from testifying in his/her official or individual capacity as a prosecution witness in a criminal case,

4. The individual is barred from testifying in his/her official or individual capacity as a witness for either side in a criminal case.

5. The individual is barred from testifying in any capacity in any case, criminal or civil.

I can see the justification for preventing a lying cop from testifying as a prosecution witness (unquestionably in his/her official capacity, and as a preventative for pretextual “individual capacity” testimony).

The others strike me as violations of due process — if a witness has useful evidence, a criminal defendant or civil litigant is entitled to it, but must take the witness “as is.”

I think, however, that a better approach is to have the court make a finding on the record that the cop willingly lied, obstructed justice, attempted to railroad an innocent defendant, has no respect for the truth, wouldn’t tell the truth if it presented the slightest inconvenience/conflicted with his world view, etc., and for their to be a rule of evidence deeming any such finding of fact to be relevant and admissible per se.

In short, go ahead and testify, but you’d better have a shitload of corroboration.

The problem is that the decision of whether a cop’s testimony should be considered by default unreliable is made by a judge, rather than a jury, and the mindset judges use when deciding whether to block evidence is rather different from that of a jury. To exclude evidence, a judge must generally find that no impartial finder of fact would consider it reliable. By contrast, all a juror would have to do to disregard a witness’ testimony is find that one particular finder of fact (himself) considers it unreliable.

Only if the police don’t know a judge who will block any questioning on the subject as “irrelevant and prejudicial”.

An incredibly stupid decision by the sheriff of Clayton County. No cop who has been fired for lying to cover up police misconduct will ever be a credible witness in front of a jury in any future case, which means they’re completely useless to the police force.

He’s probably going to use them as enforces. They won’t ever show up in court because they won’t be used for *those* situations, if you catch my drift.

Good point #28, but I doubt insurance companies are pricing policies at a level of detail that takes into account individual cops on a particular PD. Probably neither practical or cost effective as a general practice. However, If some concerned citizen tipped off the insurance company about some risky recent hires by a PD, I’ll bet the insurance company would act on that info.

Thanks for the picture of the baby anteater. I needed that.

I mean, it’s like getting into a DUI accident. There’s now a history of expensive problems relating to the person. Surely the liability is now increased?

——

Jim March: I’m just wondering if the tech will get good enough for rifling.

Don’t judge them based on one blog post about one incident. TP has covered this issue plenty.

You can’t expect a blogger to provide a thorough overview of an issue every time it comes up.

@11 Walking While Negro

@17 Except for your own personal brute squad, which I guess is the point. This is why law enforcement is losing respect.

I like the way the blogger characterizes them as “unintentionally funny.” And they are.

Party speakers cited medical research they said shows men empty their bladders more efficiently while seated. Improved bladder evacuation reduces the risk for prostate problems, according to the party. It also helps men who sit rather than stand achieve a longer and healthier sex life, it said.

Now, who wants to add “Seated Urinator” to his screen name?

lol. Douche chills.