Northwestern University Innocence Project Sued

[Darth Yan]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... icago.html

So basically an innocence project may have framed an innocent man to let a guilty man go free, and now the guy's suing Northwestern for $40 million. Honestly, I'm rather conflicted, since many of the people sticking up for the released guy (Alstory Simon) have in the past defended the corrupt chief John Burge) and may well be using this to attack all innocence projects. On the other hand, there is strong evidence that Alstory Simon was railroaded. The porter case was one of the things that motivated governor Ryan to put a moratorium on executions (alongside the Ford Heights Four Case and Rolando Cruz case), and one of the guys involved in the Fords Height Four case was also a driving force in the porter case (David Protess). So.....yeah. Thoughts?

[Joun_Lord]

Sounds like a case of over-zealous knob jobs willing to "break the rules" to do whatever to do their job. Happens all the time on TV, Jack Bauer practically is an embodiment of it, but its not something nice or nobel IRL. I'd like to think they did it for "good" reasons, they thought Porter really was innocent and Simon guilty but got a massive case of blinders where they couldn't see beyond their own narrative of the events, however even if they did it for "good" reasons (which they probably didn't, I'm sure money was somehow involved) it by no means excuses their conduct.

But these douches shouldn't be a black mark against all innocence projects. These are the corrupted work of a small group of people, not something sanctioned by all similar organizations (and possibly not even their entire organization itself) nor something that is common with innocence organizations hence why this is such a big goddamn deal.

I'm sure there are some who disagree but punishing all innocence projects for the actions of those involved in railroading Simon is akin to punishing all gun owners for the actions of a few nutters, all Trekkies for a few being sleezy misogynistic scuzzballs (I remember a while back some Trek fans accosting some female fans for bringing their dirty girl germs in their exclusive nerdom), all cops because some think they are fucking in downtown Kabul and all dogs, black people, and mentally ill are the enemy, or all atheists because some are hateful cuntnuggets who want to take religious people's kids away and outlaw worship of imaginary characters.

This whole deal is the result of the US "justice" system's over emphasis on punishment rather then actually getting justice and bettering society. If prosecutors didn't HAVE to get a conviction, HAVE to punish someone, HAVE to show someone is paying for this crime we'd probably have a whole lot less people like Simon winding up behind bars and even if he did he probably wouldn't have spent 15 years in a place that I'd literally rather chew through my wrists then spend even a month in.

[Darth Yan]

That's the thing; Porter's original case was fucked up (his attorney fell asleep during the hearing and cut the investigation short) and Simon WAS a viable suspect (according to the mother of Marilyn Green, he knew Jerry Hillard and argued with him over money on the day he was shot; as such any officer with a brain would have questioned him in more detail). In spite of that he was never questioned aside from one or two short questions. It's like with Roger Coleman; coleman was guilty but the police failure to investigate Douglas Ramey (a psychotic asshole who raped 3 women) was still terrible.

Terry Ekl and Sotos also defended John Burge, and another defender (Martin Prieb) has also tried to attack cases that were airtight (such as the Madison Hobley case, where he refuses to acknowledge that one of the state's witness was himself an arsonist.)

David Protess has done good work in the past which makes it more tragic. The stand out case is the ford heights four. Four teenagers were convicted of raping and murdering a white couple. A long investigation proved that it was 4 other men who did it (the ringleader and lead murderer was dead but his compatriots faced justice). They interviewed the police, and the one officer who didn't tell them to fuck off confirmed that yes they were informed of possible suspects but that they were ignored. Even produced handwritten notes of the interview. DNA testing proved that these 4 suspects were the killers. In that case they worked with others and did the investigation right. The dna tests confirmed it to the point where very few dare question it; even protess's critics don't touch that case.

The documentary murder in the park (about this case) actually makes a distinction.

[Simon_Jester]

The "my attorney fell asleep" thing should have been more than enough to get Porter off (or at least a retrial with a competent attorney) without the need to present an alternative suspect a la Perry Mason.

Honestly, in a case where another man was convicted of a crime, it should be very difficult to take a new suspect and send them to jail. Because the fact that a judge and jury found another suspect guilty would almost have to constitute 'reasonable doubt' for purposes of a new trial. Even if you argue that there were errors in the first trial... how can you be sure enough to convict the second person?

[Grumman]

The "my attorney fell asleep" thing should have been more than enough to get Porter off (or at least a retrial with a competent attorney) without the need to present an alternative suspect a la Perry Mason.

By "competent", you mean not using the strategy that you suggest could be a sure-fire way of getting away with murder?

[Simon_Jester]

Uh... hang on, I may be confused by your reply. Wait- I see.

Well, let's just say that as a tongue in cheek reply that's sound, but as a matter of principle attorneys shouldn't do something that could get them disbarred. Sleeping through trials would be an example of that.

Thus, perhaps a retrial is the appropriate response- but there should be something. The provisions of the Constitution that you have a right to counsel really ought to extend to saying that you have a right to counsel that will refrain from gross breaches of professionalism that impair their ability to defend you.

[Thanas]

Thing is, the threshold for appeals in the USA for ineffective council is so unreasonably high that "my attorney fell asleep" is not enough. Heck, there even was such a case where the attorney fell asleep during the cross - it was upheld, of course. Heck, not even the defence attorney being drunk or mentally ill (and admitting it) is enough to get the defendant off by itself.

So I can very well see how they felt the need to go with another hypothesis because the defence attorney falling asleep, being crazy or drunk is apparently not enough to render him as ineffective counsel per se in the USA.

[Darth Yan]

Yeah the whole case was a mess. Porter may have been guilty but it was not a fair trial by any stretch and most of simon's defenders care more about making the state look good than justice.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, the threshold for appeals in the USA for ineffective council is so unreasonably high that "my attorney fell asleep" is not enough. Heck, there even was such a case where the attorney fell asleep during the cross - it was upheld, of course. Heck, not even the defence attorney being drunk or mentally ill (and admitting it) is enough to get the defendant off by itself.

An excellent illustration of the difference between "should be enough" and "is enough." I quite agree.

[nods]

So I can very well see how they felt the need to go with another hypothesis because the defence attorney falling asleep, being crazy or drunk is apparently not enough to render him as ineffective counsel per se in the USA.

Well, pointing out that the police failed to adequately investigate alternative witnesses and that the other witnesses might have done it is also a legitimate strategy for defense.

The problem is simply that even after you exonerate Suspect A by pointing out that Suspect B might have done it... the fact remains that Suspect A was convicted. This suggests at least reasonable doubt; Suspect B might be innocent, because Suspect A might have done it.

Of course this results in no one going to jail for the crime, but that's why the prosecution is supposed to do their homework before the trial, not after.

[Darth Yan]

On the other hand there was evidence at a grand jury hearing implicating porter. The students all but admitted that they didn't really read a lot of the records (so they were unaware of other eyewitnesses).

People like Martin Prieb (http://newcity.com/2014/02/20/crossing- ... more-10049) or (http://martin-preib-b7is.squarespace.com/news/)

are right in pointing that out but they also seem desperate to downplay the police's mistakes which makes it hard to figure out where to stand. Alstory Simon did know Jerry Hillard (one of the victims); the mother and sister of the other victim (Marilyn Green) both claimed to see Jackson and Simon with the two on the day of the murder; not at the park but they interacted. Yet the police literally asked him "do you know about the case", and than sending him on his way. Honestly, I still think the police should have thoroughly investigated Simon back than because he DID have a motive unlike Porter (Porter did random acts of violence but that's it). simon also publicly apologized to the mother of marilyn green at sentencing.

I'm reminded of the Leo Jones Case. They did lower the reasonable doubt standard but because a lot of it had been presented they couldn't reuse it. If they presented or found this stuff later than it would have been a slam dunk. There were 12 people implicating Glenn Schofield (Jones's friend) as the murderer; his girlfriend (who schofield said would vouch for him honest) pointed the finger at him, several saw him with a rifle just after the shot. The officer who got the confession was later fired for beating prisoners. he was fried anyway.