
When Prosecutors Believe the Unbelievable - grej
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/07/mark_weiner_conviction_vacated_chelsea_steiniger_text_case_finally_overturned.single.html
======
valar_m
Infuriating.

A lot of people immediately think of Mike Nifong when prosecutor misconduct
comes up, and while that case was certainly disgusting, I think an even better
(worse?) example is the prosecution of Mr. John Thompson by Harry Connick, Sr.

Though it receives far less attention, the facts of the case are no less than
offensive. Mr. Thompson was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to die for a
crime that he did not commit. [0] The DNA evidence that would have fully
exonerated Mr. Thompson of any wrongdoing was deliberately withheld by the
prosecutor, Harry Connick, Sr. (yep, the dad), long-time prosecutor in New
Orleans.

Mr. Thompson spent _fourteen years_ on death row. Fourteen years of this man's
life were stolen from him by Harry Connick, Sr., years that he can never get
back. On seven occasions during his time on death row, he was given the date
on which he would be put to death for something he did not do. [1]

Can you even imagine? To lay in bed, reflecting back on the events of a day in
which you had been given a time and a place to be put to death for something
that you did not do? I cannot. Don't bother asking Harry Connick, Sr. about
that, though. He doesn't give one single fuck. [2]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connick_v._Thompson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connick_v._Thompson)

[1] [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jury-gave-john-
thompson-14-mi...](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jury-gave-john-
thompson-14-million-wrongly-spent/story?id=13269542)

[2]
[http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/04/former_da_harry_...](http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/04/former_da_harry_connick_defend.html)

------
pascalmemories
Working in the legal system for many years, it was always very clear that
these are courts of law, never courts of justice.

The legal system requires minor technical hurdles to be passed to "prove"
guilt. Experienced prosecutors know that the facts of a case are irrelevant
(as demonstrated here, very starkly). Get enough of your check-boxes filled in
and you "win" and you're up for promotion based on all your wins (or election
to higher office etc.). That's all a prosecutor is interested in (i.e. their
own promotion, building a track record of winning).

Justice, I'm afraid, does not get a look in. Sometimes, by coincidence, it may
meet, but that's never by design on the prosecution side.

~~~
Zikes
I never understood why a guilty verdict is a "win" rather than a truthful
verdict.

It really drives home that as far as the justice system is concerned, we all
_belong_ in prison.

~~~
jws
Why would you have a trial if you already knew the truth?

Edit: I appear to have been overly vague. My point is that you can't reward a
prosecutor for producing a "truthful" outcome unless you know the truth to
compare with. If you knew the absolute truth then an adversarial trial system
would be expensive and redundant.

~~~
Zikes
Why would you call it a failure to not send an innocent person to prison?

------
onetimeusername
This is the reason why the entire push for "Yes Means Yes" style laws and
Title IX prosecution is terrifying. At some point it would simply be optimal
to record your own surrounding for your own sake, lest you end up as a juicy
target for rising democratic prosecutor or attention hungry "Activists". its
not the "Surveillance State" americans should really be worried about, but
their own DAs and bureaucrats in Department of "Education".

~~~
dudul
"At some point it would simply be optimal to record your own surrounding for
your own sake"

Well, this article clearly shows how even with evidences, as a man displeasing
a woman you are guilty in the system.

Sad, but the morale of this case is simple: don't interact with millennial
women.

~~~
mattzito
If the moral of this case that you take away is, "Don't interact with
milennial women", I think you have a very skewed view of the world.

~~~
dudul
What is the moral to you?

~~~
emodendroket
Prosecutors essentially have the power to ruin anyone's life capriciously.
It's not as though sexual assault is the only sort of crime people are ever
falsely accused of.

~~~
dudul
That's a good point, but sexual assault is the perfect fit for greedy
prosecutors who want to score a big win before an election.

Sexual assault is the only crime where there is sometimes not even real proof
that the crime actually happened. As opposed to a murder or a theft or
financial montages. Most of the time all we have is the word of a woman saying
it happened. Sexual assault is the only crime where we lower the bar of
"beyond reasonable doubt".

~~~
emodendroket
I don't really agree with you. And even if you're right about sexual assault
being uniquely suited to this, what difference does it make whether the
alleged victim is a millennial, or even a woman?

------
emodendroket
I think something to think about here is that this is a middle-class white
guy. While there are obvious and troubling disparities in the justice system
based on both wealth and race, the focus on those sometimes, I think, makes it
too easy to think of it as a problem that only affects other people.

------
bpyne
The prosecutor should really be disbarred. The local bar should be quite
embarrassed to have such a high ranking member with no regard for ethics. At
this point, Denise Lundsford has gravely undermined public confidence in the
legal system.

I hope that Mr. Weiner sues that state for compensation for his house,
savings, emotional injury, and anything else his attorney can pile on.

~~~
wl
The prosecutor and the state rightfully should pay for this injustice.
Unfortunately, prosecutors have absolute immunity for tortuous conduct
committed in the course of their job. And for weird historical reasons,
governments have sovereign immunity and can't be sued in their own courts
unless they waive that immunity.

------
teddyh
Regarding the headline, “ _When Prosecutors Believe the Unbelievable_ ”:
Here’s what I wrote, two months ago
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9594806](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9594806)),
which applies equally to prosecutors:

“ _Lawyers actually “think” nothing. Or rather, what they write and what they
argue is what they are paid to write and argue. It has no actual connection to
what they actually think - they might not even have actually personally
considered the issue, and may never do so. However, what they write is in many
ways_ meant _to be taken seriously and reacted to, just like troll posts.
Therefore, take care not to be trolled by lawyers._ ”

------
gadders
"This has been a horrific year in Charlottesville, between the loss of Hannah
Graham and the Rolling Stone article about an alleged gang rape at the
University of Virginia. There are indeed predators everywhere."

That would be the made-up story about a gang rape at the University of
Virginia? Not sure how that can prove anything about predators. All it proves
is that some journalists are incompetent.

""A Rape on Campus" is an article by Sabrina Erdely published in the December
2014 issue of Rolling Stone,[1] which has since been debunked and retracted by
the publisher. " [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus)

~~~
dudul
I can't believe the author didn't know the RS article was a scam. I guess the
two examples are given to establish a dichotomy between cases where predators
were actually involved and those where it's just paranoia, both falling under
the umbrella of a "horrific year".

------
sklogic
The real question is why anyone in a position of power is allowed to _believe_
anything at all, instead of always acting rationally and always being ready to
rationally justify each and every decision?

~~~
icebraining
A rationally justified belief is still a belief.

~~~
sklogic
No. It's a _hypothesis_. And a mindset of choosing to act on a basis of a
well-grounded hypothesis (and knowing precisely which facts and conclusions
lead to considering such a hypothesis in the first place and what will falsify
it) is totally different from a mindset of acting upon some _belief_.

------
cvick
Near the end of the article, there's this: "Because we elect our prosecutors,
there is no chance of apology, and no admission of error."

Can anybody help me understand this? Does it really work this way?

~~~
philip238
If they admit they made a bad decision, they'll be voted out in the next
election.

------
rm_-rf_slash
The takeaway mistake would be to propose technical or legal solutions that
would "prevent" something like this from happening again, like adding hoops to
jump through or harsh penalizations that could chill legitimate prosecution
elsewhere for fear of community retaliation. We have to reexamine our culture
of vindictive punishment, winning as an absolute virtue, and the health of the
community as a whole. Changing culture is hard, but it's the only aspect where
things have lasting change.

~~~
forgingahead
Simple, arrest and charge the girl for making false accusations, with a
minimum of 20 years in prison. Raise a legal fund and sue the hell out of the
city, naming the prosecutor as chief in a conspiracy of abuse of power and
corruption, also with a minimum of 20 years in prison.

This is nothing but corruption and pure evil, and unless you stamp it out,
another poor fellow like this one (who was only interested in being a good
citizen to a potentially vulnerable girl; remember Hannah Graham), will get
his life destroyed by similarly evil people.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Prosecutors are immune from civil suits under a doctrine called "absolute
immunity"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity)

~~~
LanceH
Funny how lawyers are protected from lawyers.

~~~
icebraining
Prosecutors, not any lawyer.

------
a3n
We're just resources for arresting cops and prosecuting attorneys, anonymous
metrics on performance evaluations and resumes.

------
dudul
Is the girl currently being charged? How many years is she gonna spend in
prison?

Remember people, "war on women".

~~~
spacehome
Why do you think this is because she is a woman? The lion's share of
individuals in jail are men, but it still seems like a war on people.

~~~
dudul
I think that the prosecutor was oblivious to all evidences because the
"victim" was a woman.

All such cases follow this pattern, woman is the alleged victim, man is
convicted, 2 years later details made public regarding disregarded evidence,
man released.

That's my perception. Just like people can say "she was not promoted because
she's a woman" or "he was pulled over because he's black" I can say "she was
believed unconditionally because she's a woman".

