On 24-3-2009 1:00, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> missing in his talk: proof. At no point he is actually talking about 
>> proving guilty or proving innocent. It is about convincing the jury. 
> 
> That's what the "proof" is. 

No, it may be, it also may be just about proof by intimidation or any of 
those other forms of proof that you can find as lists on the internet. 
It should be about evidence that someone was some place and not about 
trying to suggest that the witness that says something that disproves 
you is unreliable. If you think that is a valid way to handle a case in 
a court, you are an American. ;)

> How else are you going to evaluate evidence?

Good question. We tend to have people trained to evaluate the evidence. 
I think that works here, but I know it fails in a lot of other places.

>> That is more or less the difference between guilty until proven 
>> innocent and innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> To be guilty (in a crime that can lead to jail), the prosecutor has to 
> present enough evidence to the jury that all 12 people on the jury agree 
> that there's no reasonable way to doubt you did it.  *Before* that, they 
> have to have a Grand Jury, which figures out if there's even enough 
> evidence to be worth presenting in front of a trial jury.

That's the theory, what the guy in the video actually says is that it 
does not work that way in practice. He is e.g talking about how to use 
something someone said in a way to discredit him. Take the example of 
someone saying that he did not like someone and turning that into a 
motive. Apparently (and I have to take his word for it) it can be enough 
for a conviction in the US combined with him not having an alibi etc. 
Nothing here is about verifiable material evidence. That is what struck me.

> 
> Does it misfire sometimes? Sure. Do the lawyers try to pick juries that 
> will believe them before the process even starts? Sure. Do you get to 
> waive your rights to a jury and instead have the judge decide? Sure.
> 
>> What he is saying is basically that if the police officer *thinks* you 
>> are guilty anything you say can and probably will be used to get you 
>> convicted.
> 
> Right. Yes?

Nothing, apart from the fact that I was born in Amsterdam and still work 
there might just be enough to assume that I do use drugs and from there 
that I am the most likely person to sell them... Or that from the four 
persons that were possibly present at a murder scene the black guy is 
the most likely suspect. Or that the person that said sorry at some 
point after an accident must be the guilty party. Or...

>> Unless you can definitely prove that you didn't do it.
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> I was on a jury. The police in the unmarked car watch the man break the 
> window of the car, reach in, take the jacket on the seat, put it on, and 
> cross the street. It was hours of arguing with at least a couple of the 
> people on the jury that he really was guilty.

Interesting, what were the reasons they gave for thinking he was not guilty?

>> And if you can prove it, don't tell him (her) because he(she) can use 
>> that knowledge for a counter attack.
> 
> Yes. STFU.

Note that I have never heard a similar advice concerning the Dutch 
police, nor have I ever heard a story even remotely similar to the 
examples given here.

>> My conclusion: What really happened is immaterial or at least not as 
>> important as the track record of the officer.
> 
> The officer still has to present evidence to the jury. If he says "I 
> found drugs in his car", and he didn't, the defense lawyer will say 
> "where are the drugs, then?"  If the officer says "He was doing 120MPH", 
> the defense lawyer will say "Where's the print-out from the radar gun?"  
> If, on the other hand, you said "Sorry, officer, I know I was going too 
> fast",

I thank that won't hold up in court here as evidence.

> or "Did you stop me because of the drugs in the car?" then you've 
> given the cop the evidence he needs to give to the jury.

That would be useless, unless the cop did find drugs in the car. In 
which case it is superfluous.

>> The reasoning here is that because of the jury trial system and the 
>> way it is used, it is not sure if someone innocent can still get 
>> convicted. 
> 
> Of course they can. But I'm sure it happens where they don't have juries 
> also.

Sure. But in the opinion in this country in the case of the US it is 
built into the system. If it happens here it generally is investigated 
to see how it did happen and how to prevent it.

> 
>> See the video for examples. Second, because that is not sure any 
>> prosecutor (or whatever they are called) can tell a suspect: 'Hey, I 
>> have enough evidence to get you convict. In which case you get at 
>> least 5 years. So be smart, plead guilty and we arrange a nice 3 years 
>> sentence.' And he may even be right although you are completely 
>> innocent, you may get convicted if you're defence is not good enough.
> 
> This is true, *if* he has evidence. If you're actually innocent, chances 
> are the cops don't actually have any evidence, unless they plant it on 
> you, which I'm sure happens other places too.

The suggestion in the video is that the police does not need real 
evidence but can get convictions by twisting someones words into "evidence".

>> The net result is that innocent people are advised to plead guilty and 
>> hence never get a trial.
> 
> I think the completely-innocent *usually* don't wind up in trouble at 
> all. I think it's getting more common that they do, or that it's getting 
> more noticed due to the number of people with cell phones and video 
> cameras these days.

I think you are probably right as long as you are middle class white. I 
have heard some stories that not everybody is that lucky.

> The questions come up when you do something you thought was legal but 
> isn't, or when you do something technically legal that someone powerful 
> doesn't like (say, don't sleep with your congressman's wife), or you do 
> something a little bit illegal (like, "I only had the illegal drugs for 
> my own use") and then raise a stink about getting caught.  Or when it's 
> a he-said-she-said sort of thing, like the guy says it was consensual 
> and the woman says it wasn't.
> 
>  > So from a foreign point of view there is no
>> guarantee that anybody extradited to the US will get a fair trial or 
>> even a trial at all.
> 
> I think it's also the case there's a lot of places where if you're 
> foreign you're just screwed in the legal system too. :-)

Yeah, so what?

Post a reply to this message