Criminal law

[Taxing Matters]

Oops! How crass of me! I must have pressed the wrong button. Is this better?

"I will now read from Matthew, Mark, Luke and DUCK!"

Feel free to respond as you see fit. Personally I'm not bothered by it. I wouldn't have survived long working for the IRS if I had a thin skin. Some of your posts are great; they deliver useful information without being snarky, arrogant, or condescending. But I don't why you make the effort to post the snarky, arrogant and condescending comments in some of your posts. It's not helpful to anyone and some of the people to whom you respond that way probably do feel stung by it. Usually I'd say that people posting comments in that way are trying to boost their ego up by putting down others. In your case, though, you are clearly smart and knowledgeable, and your helpful posts show it. So I wouldn't think you'd need to use that kind of tactic to make yourself feel better. That's obviously just opinion formed from reading what you post. I don't know what you are like in person, you might come across much different than you do here. It's not my intent to insult you with any of this. I'm just genuinely curious why you take the condescending approach in some posts but post outstanding replies in others. I have little doubt that you'll likely find this post boring, too long, and not worth your time. You are always welcome to just skip over my posts and save your time. I'll look forward to seeing some more of your future really helpful posts.

 

[andscastro4]

While true, it's interesting to note that the OP never mentioned anything about the guy being innocent. In fact, the OP states he's a "changed man" and that he "deserves a second chance." If he were innocent, then why does he need a "second chance?"

Yeah, Good point

 

[AlmostThere]

While true, it's interesting to note that the OP never mentioned anything about the guy being innocent. In fact, the OP states he's a "changed man" and that he "deserves a second chance." If he were innocent, then why does he need a "second chance?"

Good point. I read the part that the evidence was mostly circumstantial, to be that he was possibly wrongly convicted. But failed to incorporate the "change man" who "deserves a second chance."

 

[quincy]

I have a friend in Texas who was convicted of Capital Murder with LWOP. ... Do character letters help ? ...

Character letters are often used by a prisoner during a parole board hearing when the prisoner is seeking an early release from prison. Unfortunately for your friend, he was convicted of capital murder with a sentence of life without parole. There will be no parole board hearing in his future if his conviction stands. I suppose the good news for your friend is that he was not sentenced to death.

Your friend potentially could request a resentencing, seeking a life sentence instead of his life without parole sentence, if the appeal of his conviction is unsuccessful. This change of sentence could make him eligible for parole after (I believe) serving at least 40 years of his life sentence.

We have as a forum member a Texas lawyer - @CavemanLawyer - who probably could add to and/or correct any information provided you here already. I have tagged him.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Sorry for bringing this post back to life but I just now saw it. Short of a successful appeal or writ, the only way to obtain relief from a sentence of life w/o parole is with a granting of either clemency (reduced sentence) or a pardon, which can only be done by the Governor. Have you met our current Governor? Its really an impossibility on a charge like this. If you really want to help then chip in on a good appellate attorney. You could try to get organizations like The Innocence Project to help on the case if the evidence really were as weak as you suggest. But the reality is that "circumstantial" evidence is not the taboo word in the legal field like it is portrayed on television. Most cases are entirely based on circumstantial evidence and it is often much stronger than direct evidence.

 

[STEPHAN]

Debbie, I have worked in rehabilitation a lot. Almost every inmate told me that he had not really done anything and was treated unfairly.

Only the ones who were able to truthfully recognize that they did wrong and that it was correct that they were there started were making process.

 

[quincy]

The Innocence Project of Texas estimates that there are between 3,000 and 9,000 individuals in Texas prisons today (2023) who are serving time due to wrongful convictions.

https://innocencetexas.org/submit-a...ed 3,000,financially that make that difficult.

Although we might like to believe that law enforcement, prosecuting and defense attorneys, courts and juries don’t get it wrong, and that only the guilty are found guilty, the sad reality is that our justice system sometimes fails miserably and innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Fiction, whether in books, movies, or TV often portrays circumstantial evidence as being weak at best and a case built on circumstantial evidence as one that has no chance of success. The unfortunate thing is that a good chunk of the American public doesn't seem to appreciate what the word fiction really means. They think it means the story is not real, but that the science, laws, processes, etc that are presented in that fictional tale are nevertheless accurate. The dramatic has more appeal than the mundane; a Perry Mason TV show that almost always ended with a surprise confession is more fun to watch than sitting in a real courtroom on most cases. The reader/watcher likes to think that real life is just as dramatic. So they take the elements of the story as a accurate even though they know the characters aren't real. It wouldn't be so bad except that there are people out there who base some of their decisions on those elements they see in fiction.

For those reading this thread who don't know, circumstantial evidence is simply a term describing a particular type of evidence in which the evidence infers the fact that the attorney is trying to establish. Even fingerprints are circumstantial evidence; fingerprints aren't the absolute proof of identity as the public (and law enforcement agencies) tend to believe. Like any other type of evidence, circumstantial evidence can be either strong or weak. A good, very clear complete fingerprint can be very compelling, for example, whereas a smudged or incomplete print is less convincing. Some very strong cases are built entirely on circumstantial evidence. Some cases with largely direct evidence turn out to be very weak.

There is a reason why the term "artistic license" exists. Most human events are not thrilling to watch, including many trials. So the author/screenwriter has to take some liberties (sometimes a lot of liberties) with the facts to spice things up to create an interesting story. A writer would have to change things quite a bit to make a Tax Court case dramatic because the rules of the Tax Court and the technical nature of tax cases pretty much ensure there won't be any drama at the trial. A lot of civil cases are like that: both sides already know all the evidence that is going to be presented. The big dramatic reveal that writers like just doesn't happen very much in civil cases. You'll get a bit more drama in some criminal cases, but most of them are also not compelling viewing. It's one reason why Court TV struggles to get viewers. It was near the bottom of total viewership numbers in 2023 (well below the WeatherChannel and just above the Tennis Channel), and probably would have fared even worse if it didn't have a few trials involving famous people and didn't have its own original scripted (i.e. dramatic) content in addition to airing trials. The vast majority of trials are just not compelling to watch.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Although we might like to believe that law enforcement, prosecuting and defense attorneys, courts and juries don’t get it wrong, and that only the guilty are found guilty, the sad reality is that our justice system sometimes fails miserably and innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit.

While true, it would be a mistake for people to believe from Innocence Project results and other overturned convictions that most persons convicted of crimes, whether by plea agreement, or by a trial verdict are actually innocent due to mistakes by the government. Most of those convicted are in fact guilty of a crime, though in a plea agreement the conviction is often for a crime less serious than what the accused actually did.

 

[quincy]

With just advances in DNA testing alone, since 1989 575 prisoners have been exonerated. The total exonerations through 2023 were 3,489. When you start looking at these numbers as individuals wrongly convicted and sitting in prisons for something they didn’t do, instead of looking at them as statistics, the number is significant.

Following is a link to the National Registry of Exonerations, a joint Project of the University of Michigan Law School, the Michigan State University College of Law, and the University of California Irving Newkirk Center for Science and Society:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx?View={FAF6EDDB-5A68-4F8F-8A52-2C61F5BF9EA7}&FilterField1=DNA&FilterValue1=8_DNA

The drama in TV crime shows and in books cannot capture the years wasted behind bars by real people. If someone claims they are innocent, and there is any reason at all to believe they were wrongly convicted, an investigation can be worthwhile. Unfortunately, there are far more prisoners needing assistance than legal experts available to help.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

The Innocence Project of Texas estimates that there are between 3,000 and 9,000 individuals in Texas prisons today (2023) who are serving time due to wrongful convictions.

https://innocencetexas.org/submit-a-case/#:~:text=There are an estimated 3,000,financially that make that difficult.

Although we might like to believe that law enforcement, prosecuting and defense attorneys, courts and juries don’t get it wrong, and that only the guilty are found guilty, the sad reality is that our justice system sometimes fails miserably and innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit.

And if people don’t believe law enforcement won’t do things to seal someone’s conviction if they are “sure” of their guilt read below. I remember this very well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Y...ork State Police,suspects in Central New York.

 

[quincy]

And if people don’t believe law enforcement won’t do things to seal someone’s conviction if they are “sure” of their guilt read below. I remember this very well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Police_Troop_C_scandal#:~:text=The New York State Police,suspects in Central New York.

It often takes a lot of money and a team of dedicated investigators and attorneys to fight a justice system either stacked against some people or stacked in favor of other people. Corruption unfortunately can be found at all levels.

It is actually sort of surprising and remarkable that our system of justice works as well as it does most of the time - and that most of the “bad players” are eventually discovered to face their own comeuppance.

 

[Taxing Matters]

With just advances in DNA testing alone, since 1989 575 prisoners have been exonerated. The total exonerations through 2023 were 3,489. When you start looking at these numbers as individuals wrongly convicted and sitting in prisons for something they didn’t do, instead of looking at them as statistics, the number is significant.

I agree, but I've met people who see those numbers in isolation and conclude that a very large part of the prison population, maybe even most of them, were probably wrongfully convicted. It's important to keep it all in perspective and realize that there is indeed a problem with innocent people being convicted and sent to prison that our justice system needs to tackle and do what we can to best fix it, both for those already convicted and to better prevent such convictions in the future while still keeping in mind that most of the people in prison do belong there.

 

[Taxing Matters]

And if people don’t believe law enforcement won’t do things to seal someone’s conviction if they are “sure” of their guilt read below.

I believe that one of the things that police need to be trained about is tunnel vision. Once an officer thinks he or she has the right perpetrator, unconsciously they can develop that tunnel vision and only look for evidence to support the conclusion already made and ignore any information they get that conflicts with that. The best detectives are those who are able to avoid forming preconceptions of the case and instead explore all the possibilities and evaluate all the evidence that can be gathered before forming any conclusions. It's a lot easier said than done, though, given human nature. It's something that needs to be taught and continually reinforced.

 

[quincy]

“The law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
- Sir William Blackstone

This 1769 doctrine was reworded by the US Supreme Court to say, “It is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.”

It’s true that prisons are largely populated by those rightly convicted of crimes. The impact of people wrongly convicted of crimes is not diminished with this knowledge, however.