Comments on: Where Does She Go to Regain Her Reputation? Will the Prosecution Be Punished?

By: xxx

xxx — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:39:48 +0000

she sent this kid 1500 text messages, sometimes 80-100 a day

does not make her guilty, but she is a moron as a teacher to be doing this

By: theCL Report: Beginning to See Daylight

theCL Report: Beginning to See Daylight — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:33:54 +0000

[...] Where Does She Go to Regain Her Reputation? Will the Prosecution Be Punished? [...]

By: Weird Willy

Weird Willy — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:22:30 +0000

“I wonder how many innocent people sit in prison or walk around as registered sex offenders on probation because they took a plea when the prosecutor’s case was the equivalent of this one–not worth the paper it was written on.”

An old Trial Ad professor of mine estimated that number in the “thousands;” undoubtedly he was right.

By: Articles for the Mid-Week » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog

Articles for the Mid-Week » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:09:18 +0000

[...] William Anderson: Where Does She Go to Regain Her Reputation? Will the Prosecution Be Punished? [...]

By: Danny

Danny — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:42:49 +0000

Mike T forgot informants and questions about their reward for testifying. But I like it Croaker, etc. all..

By: Mike T

Mike T — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:54:16 +0000

I would give petit juries the power to act as grand jury in situations like this, where the case is so bogus that the people involved need to be brought up on charges.

I would go a few steps further:

1. I would reduce the role of the judge exclusively to that of legal adviser to the jury.

2. I would authorize the jury to ask the judge if any conduct uncovered in court is possibly criminal. Acting upon the judge’s explanation of the law covering the behavior in question, the jury would be authorized to expand the scope of the trial to include any participant whose behavior was suspected to be criminal. This would include police and prosecutors.

3. I would almost completely abolish the ability of the superior courts to alter or throw out a jury conviction and sentence.

By: Karl

Karl — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:14:00 +0000

Teen: Ex-teacher wanted to marry me (September 13, 2012)
http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/555439.html
From the article: The student testified that he and (his female teacher) had sex on two subsequent occasions – the first of which happened Feb. 1, 2009, Super Bowl Sunday, at (her) house. The student claimed that (she) was at Journeez Bar with several other teachers, when she went into the bathroom to call him to make plans to meet up…(The teacher) sometimes sent the alleged victim text messages as early as 5 or 6 a.m. and continued to text him throughout the school day when she was teaching and he was in class – for instance, sending him as many as 150 text messages during school hours Dec. 10, 2008. Karl’s comment: This case was previously reported and the teacher was acquitted after this article about her trial based upon a “he said-she said” defense, but the testimony reveals a lot.
http://www.insectman.us/exodus-mandate-wv/news-2012.htm

By: EBL

EBL — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:18:17 +0000

The short term solution is to make a high bar for lawsuits for prosecutors who act in bad faith. That will glean out frivolous suits. But make that bar one that if met the judge does not have the discretion to toss.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:14:41 +0000

The prosecutor represents the state. The judge represents the state. Whenever a prosecutor is involved in a court case there is a conflict of interest. Use it and spread the word for others.

By: John C. Randolph

John C. Randolph — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:22:00 +0000

I like Croaker’s idea. I like it very, very much.

-jcr

By: croaker

croaker — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:49:56 +0000

I would go beyond jury nullification.

I would give petit juries the power to act as grand jury in situations like this, where the case is so bogus that the people involved need to be brought up on charges.

By: John

John — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:25:34 +0000

I was falsely accused of child molestation some years ago, and what I have read in both the articles and in many of the replies is all too sadly similar to my case. The police investigator “lost” important files, but the prosecution insisted on continuing the case. When I produced a stack of documentation and an extensive eyewitness list to disprove the allegations and their timeframes, requested as part of the discovery motions, the prosecutor told me it would “not be necessary” for me to copy what I had–and within 24 hours the prosecution amended the charges, covering a 3-month span (including the days my accusers were interviewed by the investigators!). The prosecution objected to my taking a polygraph under any circumstances. The results? I remain on my state’s sex offender registry, the result of a plea bargain that my own attorney at the time, among others, pressured me to take. It was a nolo plea, or jail, he said–no other options existed.
Prosecutors due to rampant ambition, to maintain the attitude and appearance of being “tough on crime”, or to enjoy a “power trip”, have really hurt more people than they help. Many twist the principle that they are public servants all out of recognition. Many indulge in activities that violate–and pervert–the Bill of Rights. Think of former prosecutor Mike Nifong and his actions in the Duke University lacrosse players’ case.
Harvard law professor and political conservative William Stuntz sent his final book to the publishers shortly before his death last year. The Collapse of American Criminal Justice studied the last 50-odd years of this country’s justice system, and issued a scathing, damning indictment. Chief among his findings is the incredible power and influence prosecutors have gained, far out of proportion to what Stuntz and others believe right. There is too much focus and reliance on procedure, and no substantive limits on what can be criminalized and on what punishments can be meted out. In such an environment prosecutors more often than not take advantage of all opportunities, even if defendants, innocent or guilty, get legally screwed in the process.
Change is needed, including limits on “good-faith immunity”, and ways to make investigators and prosecutors more accountable to “We, the People.”

By: Mr Lizard

Mr Lizard — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:08:45 +0000

I’ve been pondering the idea of replacing the entire judicial branch with an artificial intelligence, complete with T-800 enforcers strictly tasked with police and prosecutorial oversight.

By: ru

ru — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:52:56 +0000

Did anyone else find it disturbing in the report on the West Virginia Record that it appears that Steve Jory, the special prosecutor who pursued this travesty that was started by Richard Busch, was the DEFENSE counsel in the first trial for which Wilfong filed complaints with the ODC against Busch?

So Jory, having been on the receiving end of Busch’s deceptions, was tapped to investigate whether or not the case against Faulkner had any merit. And he pursued it?! I guess merit is determined by who signs your paycheck.

By: Bill Wells

Bill Wells — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:48:11 +0000

My recollection is that the idea that government agents have immunity is an old one going back to common law. However, statutory law overrides common law, so it would seem that there is no legal impediment to stripping them of immunity. Making that happen is another matter….

By: Meiczyslaw

Meiczyslaw — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:46:07 +0000

I don’t know if this is true in this case, but my firearms safety teacher (a former police officer) warned me that, should I shoot anyone, I’d be going to court even if the D.A. knew the shooting was justified.

Not because they were out to get me (though that happens), but because a “not guilty” verdict would end the case. (Protect me from double jeopardy, etc.) In some cases, the prosecution needs the “not guilty” verdict as much as the “guilty” one.

One wonders if the continued prosecution was necessary to solidify the case against Busch, and to make it easier for Faulkner to receive restitution.

(If my assumption is true, this leads to a second observation: that our system is screwed up enough that “innocent until proven guilty” isn’t really enforced.)

By: marie

marie — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:38:58 +0000

I wonder how many innocent people sit in prison or walk around as registered sex offenders on probation because they took a plea when the prosecutor’s case was the equivalent of this one–not worth the paper it was written on…

The prosecutor doesn’t need a good case–he doesn’t even need a mediocre case most of the time. Threatening the defendant with a mandatory minimum sentence is all that’s necessary. Such a tiny portion of cases ever go to trial–those are the only cases where the prosecution really needs to prove anything.

Dave makes an excellent point about jury nullification.

By: C. S. P. Schofield

C. S. P. Schofield — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:38:24 +0000

Bill Wells,

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I wondered because if the Court had struck down a law intended to limit immunity, that would indicate a higher set of hurdles we would have to clear to reign this in.

So, second question; has anybody attempted to get legislation passed that would limit prosecutorial immunity? If so, what happened to it? If not, why not?

By: Bill Wells

Bill Wells — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:48:39 +0000

It’s been awhile since I read Imbler but if memory serves, the Supreme Court did not give prosecutors immunity; prosecutors always had immunity and Imbler merely ruled that they still did.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:47:02 +0000

Why is it the people who so vehemently complain about corporate protections shielding company officers from liability never seem to have anything to say about the immunity granted to government officials?

You mean Democrats? I think we can be honest with each other. It's because Democrats are just 1 of 2 gangs running the country and they both gin up sparkly distractions to keep people fooled.