
For the First Time, a Prosecutor Will Go to Jail for Wrongfully Convicting - fahimulhaq
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-godsey/for-the-first-time-ever-a_b_4221000.html
======
vishnugupta
I was contemplating about this in the context of many similar posts on HN
(Aaron Swartz [1] being a prime one). And I realized the power that
lawyers/prosecutors wield over accused is enormous. To _win_ a case they can
design outrageous plea bargains - plead guilty and get 5 years, don't plead
and face death if convicted. Even if lawyers representing accused try to
educate him that the chances of conviction are less than 1% the fear of facing
death penalty is so enormous that accused typically end up pleading guilty.
And not without a reason. Loss aversion plays a big role when a human arrives
at a decision. And just like that the prosecutor who initially had a very
little chance of winning the case ends up winning it.

I know that I'm sort of oversimplifying here but the key take away here is
that prosecutor has absolutely nothing to lose! Well OK, he could end up
_losing_ the case but that's nothing compared to what accused stand to lose.
There needs to be a counterbalance to the power wielded by prosecutors, and
this is a good start!

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7998287](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7998287)

~~~
netcan
I think we also need to put this in historical context.

I remember a few years ago an Australia jailed for drugs in Indonesia
explaining that she pleaded guilty while maintaining innocence in Australian
media because " _this is how it works here._ " IE, the system expects you to
admit guilt and apologize, else face a much worse outcome. I thought "That's
how it works everywhere."

This is not just across countries, it's across time. Confession has almost
always been a part of the legal process. It's been necessary for mercy (plea
bargain) and it's been extracted through torture, manipulation and any other
means possible. Nearly every witch during the English witch hunts pleaded
guilty and grassed on other witches.

I suspect that the same thing was going in the squares of Jericho 400
generations ago.

The concept of a trial where the accused defends, prosecutors accuse and the
juries or judges decide is an idealization and/or a back-up plan. Even if we
wanted to do this in all cases, we couldn't afford to. Modern judicial
processes are too expenses to be used in all but a minority of cases.

I don't think we can fix this wholesale at this point.

~~~
graycat
> I don't think we can fix this wholesale at this point

Fix: Put me on the jury. E.g., the OP mentions that at the start of a trial,
the judge can issue an "ethical rule order" which says that the prosecutor and
police must provide to the defense all evidence that might help the accused.

No _ethical rule order_? With me on the jury, tough to get a conviction.

Prosecutor offered the accused a plea bargain but now wants to convict of a
much more serious crime? Nope: On the jury, I won't convict of anything more
serious than the plea bargain offer.

Prosecutor presents evidence from the police lab? I will have to work really
hard not to LOL.

Prosecutor presents DNA evidence? Just shake my head and know that the chances
of that evidence being correct are zip, zilch, and zero.

Prosecutor talks about probabilities? Accused goes free. Even if 20 million
people have jaywalked, even if from a simple random sample 99 44/100% of
people have jaywalked, that still is zip, zilch, and zero evidence that the
accused jaywalked.

Police give testimony? Ha! In practice the police are perfectly free to lie
under oath without any risk of being accused of perjury. Ignore all testimony
of police. E.g., police found drugs in the accused car? Might have been
planted by the police. Maybe the situation is just that the accused had some
cash and the police just wanted to steal it. Can't trust the police.

Accused is poor? Police love to go after poor people, guilty or not.

~~~
karmajunkie
Your "ethical rule order" is already a feature of American jurisprudence.
Violating it is why this prosecutor is doing any time at all.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Not everywhere, and only recently. Brady violations are unfortunately still
too common. Probably because the only punishment for it (before Ken Anderson)
is that the DA might have a conviction overturned, later, if caught.

------
balabaster
Did I miss a bit in this article - the innocently convicted man did 25 years.
The prosecutor, knowing his innocence, withheld the evidence that allowed this
conviction to pass but only did 500 hours (approx. 3 months) of community
service and 10 days in prison.

An innocent man lost 25 years of his life and the man who caused this
eventually, after a reasonably successful career lost what may as well equate
to some vacation time...

Am I the only one who is horrified at this? Okay, so he got more than a slap
on the wrist, but what the fuck is this?! That's bullshit! Pardon my
linguistics, but my horror at this injustice leaves me short for words.

The only restitution that would make this even marginally okay is if the
prosecutor/judge had been required to:

\- House the convicted man.

\- Set him up with training that would allow the convicted to re-integrate
meaningfully into today's society.

\- Assist the man to find meaningful and gainful employment.

\- Set him up with a pension plan that would have been equivalent to see him
through retirement.

\- Set him up for success in the manner in which he would have been able to
provide for himself had he been a free man.

\- Feed him, clothe him and pay his utility bills until such a time as his
income would allow him to successfully stand on his own two feet.

Even then, he owes this man 25 years of his service to make up for what was
taken from him. If that bankrupts his accuser, so be it.

~~~
rayiner
There is context here the article doesn't disclose. The prosecutor didn't
"know" Morton was innocent. He failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, namely
the fact that Morton's three year old son was at the scene and said his father
wasn't home at the time of the murder.[1] It was undoubtedly unethical to
withhold that. If there were doubts about the reliability of the child's
testimony, that was the jury's call to make, not his. But not disclosing that
statement is a far cry from prosecuting someone despite "knowing his
innocence."

[1] [http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-
exonerations/pre...](http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-
exonerations/press-releases/former-williamson-county-prosecutor-ken-anderson-
enters-plea-to-contempt-for-misconduct-in-michael-mortonac-a-ac-s-wrongful-
murder-conviction) ("Anderson did not turn over a transcript of the victim’s
mother telling an investigator that Morton’s 3-year-old son Eric had told her
that Morton was not the attacker and other evidence pointing to a third party
assailant.")

~~~
sophacles
According to articles linked from this one - there was also a lot of other
evidence withheld:

* a strange van lurking in the neighborhood

* the wife's credit card turning up in a different city after the events

* dna evidence from semen in the bed

* dna evidence from a bloody bandana

(both things with dna point to the same person who wasn't morton)

And from the article you linked:

 _The investigator also received evidence that the attack was committed by a
third party intruder -- a neighbor reported that she observed what appeared to
be someone staking out the house and someone attempted to use the victim’s
credit card in San Antonio. - See more
at:[http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-
exonerations/pre...](http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-
exonerations/press-releases/former-williamson-county-prosecutor-ken-anderson-
enters-plea-to-contempt-for-misconduct-in-michael-mortonac-a-ac-s-wrongful-
murder-conviction#sthash.aJVF6I5T.dpuf) _

That Anderson had all of that is enough to point to a reasonably strong
suspicion of knowning, if not _stricly_ knowing of Morton's innocence.

~~~
rayiner
Here is the Innocence Project's original habeas petition:
[http://www.innocenceproject.org/files/imported/morton_writ_f...](http://www.innocenceproject.org/files/imported/morton_writ_form_with_claimsfinal-2.pdf).
It does not mention either the bandana nor the semen in its list (at 8-9) of
evidence withheld by the prosecution in violation of _Brady_. The semen had
been introduced at trial to support the prosecution's theory that Morton had
masturbated over his wife's dead body (see 13). Morton requested a DNA test in
1990 that showed the semen was his.

Also note that the investigation and trial were in 1986-87. The first use of
DNA testing in a criminal was in 1987, and testing would not be routine until
many years later.

------
trevmckendrick
It appears he only served 5 of the 10 days.

[http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-
releas...](http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ken-anderson-released-
from-williamson-county-jail/nbtKN/)

(The original post is from 2013)

~~~
ohitsdom
Released early on good behavior! Wow, just wow.

------
smegel
American justice is bizarre. It seems so dependent on the prosecutor doing the
"right thing" it makes you wonder why they bother with a defense team, judge
or jury at all. Just let the prosecutor decide who's guilty!

~~~
jamesfe
In this case, the prosecutor was clearly wrong. But what is the flip side of
this? If the client admits to the defense that he's guilty, are they bound to
defend him, knowing that they're already in the wrong?

~~~
eyci
Interesting point - although it's not really symmetrical. For example,
Blackstone's formulation - "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than
that one innocent suffer".

In addition, prosecutors are presumably held to a higher standard than defense
lawyers, since they are state employees and are bound to act in the public
interest.

------
spodek
See After Innocence (free on YouTube
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWyaolBlXVc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWyaolBlXVc))
for a disturbing portrayal of wrongful convictions in the United States.

The men exonerated by the Innocence Project (99% proven wrongfully convicted
are men) serve an average of thirteen years before exoneration, sometimes
years after the exoneration happens.

The documentary shows prosecutors keeping people in prison, and therefore
guilty people free, with impunity.

The Innocence Project:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project)

------
kriro
There's a libertarian argument that I've always found interesting. If you
convict someone you are liable to receive X% (usually X>=100) of the exact
punishment if it somehow turns out the conviction was wrong. I couldn't see
this working on a large scale but it's an interesting thought experiment
(would there be a death penalty, would there be any convictions at all etc.).
It's usually linked to the idea that only victims should be able to sue and
that there is no such thing as a victimless crime.

I've always thought that a probabilistic justice system of sorts would be
interesting. Something along the lines of "the default punishment for this is
10 years however we are only 60% certain about the conviction thus the verdict
is X years (maybe something logarithmic, certainly not 6 years)"

~~~
Asbostos
Your 2nd idea is a fascinating one. The legal system has a weird binary
concept of "proof" that doesn't exist anywhere else except perhaps maths. It
might still need some threshold of certainty to stop harassment or gaming the
system with a lot of low-probability cases that are easy to fabricate.

Your first idea would have a problem in that people who's job is to convict
people will accumulate that risk the longer they work. By chance, they're
bound to get it wrong from time to time so it would unfairly punish those with
the longest careers.

~~~
johncolanduoni
> The legal system has a weird binary concept of "proof" that doesn't exist
> anywhere else except perhaps maths.

This is not true at all, at least in the US. One of the core differences
between criminal and civil cases is the burden of proof; the former requires
proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", while for the latter it is "the
preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing" depending on the
case. The definitions of these terms are not laser precise (I'm not sure how
they could be), but there is at least a recognized role that the non-binary
degree to which the evidence is convincing plays.

~~~
pdkl95
The high bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is incre4dibly important, and a
lot of people end up being distracted by concepts like _efficiency_ , when the
very basis of our legal system is that it isn't _supposed_ to be efficient or
"unbiased". It is intended to be explicitly biased _against_ the state, so any
of these probabilistic "gray" are a burden the state must overcome.

Yes, this means we sometimes let some truly despicable people walk away
without being punished. That's the point.

While the devil is in the details, "reasonable" is a decent bar. We don't have
to entertain _every_ possibility. If your defense is that space-aliens made
you do it, nobody is going to find that "reasonable". On the other hand, if
you defense is at least a _plausible_ alternative interpretation of the facts,
I would consider that a "reasonable doubt".

As we will always have a margin of error in complex human interactions, we
have to decide if we want to err on the side of vengeance even when it affects
innocent people, or if we want to protect the innocent even when it also
involves giving protection to the guilty. It is at these boundary cases where
concepts like "freedom" is tested. If we only give the protections of a "free"
society to the people that _don 't need it_ while ignoring rights and due
process when it is convenient (trials are expensive), then any claim about
being a civilized are merely dishonest marketing.

~~~
iofj
Meanwhile ... the government is hard at work reducing the available time a
judge has to consider a case. It's down to hours on average, for complex
cases, minutes (not even tens of minutes) for "simple" cases (ie. < 2 weeks
jail).

This forces judges to have an attitude along the lines of first offence ->
warning plus fine if more than 1 week jail time, second offence -> same, but
rescind driver license for a time as well, offence during driver license
rescinded -> jail time. It is simply not possible to consider subtlety like
... oh, say, the actual case the government has under those rules.

But of course, because the government has been so successful in reducing time
spent per case, at this point, giving judges an hour per case minimum would
involve increasing the size of the justice system tenfold, maybe more.

------
afandian
10 days isn't 'a slap on the wrist', or 'a good start' it's tantamount to
immunity.

~~~
Asbostos
He also lost his license and presumably his job which is probably the more
serious consequence than the 10 days.

~~~
afandian
Losing your license and job are (should be) standard for malpractice. I think
you can cancel that bit out. I'm talking about the bit where he knowingly sent
innocent people to jail and abused his position.

------
tsotha
It's really past time to get rid of the qualified immunity doctrine. It's yet
another "law" made up by the supreme court from whole cloth.

Prosecutors should be fully liable for illegal actions they take even when
they're performing official duties. This guy should be serving a sentence
years long, not days.

~~~
a3n
> It's really past time to get rid of the qualified immunity doctrine. It's
> yet another "law" made up by the supreme court from whole cloth.

This is where every system that polices others plus themselves falls down. You
can think of qualified immunity as professional courtesy between lawyers.

In Wisconsin the Republican legislature and Republican governor (the recently
failed presidential candidate Walker) passed and signed a law limiting
political corruption investigations, because they were annoyed at all the
investigations and convictions of themselves.

No one watches the watchers.

~~~
tsotha
That's a terrible example. Those John Doe investigations were a great example
of prosecutorial abuse. If I had been Walker I would have had the state AG
indict the prosecutors involved for corruption.

------
rayiner
I think we need to punish prosecutorial misconduct more aggressively. That
said, you can better understand the status quo if you think of the criminal
justice system in terms of interconnected problems.

First problem: making sure prosecutors are held personally liable for the X%
of convictions that are wrongful and arise from prosecutorial misconduct.

Second problem: ensuring that people are freed for the Y% of convictions that
are wrongful and don't result from misconduct.

Third problem: ensuring that the system can function to uphold the (100 - Y -
X)% of convictions that are not wrongful.

The fact of the matter is that Y is a small number. And X is a much smaller
number than that. Yet, the (100 - Y - X)% of convicts who are really guilty
have no less incentive to appeal or sue for misconduct than the X% of people
who have a valid case. Consequently, the justice system is awash in frivolous
appeals and habeas petitions.

If it was just an issue of holding prosecutors liable in X% of cases, then
this would be a much easier problem. But you have to do that without giving
the (100 - Y - X)% of the justly-convicted a powerful tool to harass and abuse
prosecutors who engaged in no wrongdoing. That makes the problem much harder.

~~~
mr_luc
The system doesn't have enough capacity to deal with the frivolous appeals and
habeas corpus petitions? Gee, that's too bad.

If only there was something the justice system could do to reduce the number
of people going into this pipeline!

Well, I'll let you go, Justice System -- I see you found a dude with a few
grams of acid paper, which I think we can all agree makes him basically El
Chapo.

~~~
rayiner
The justice system can and does handle all those appeals and habeas petitions.
But there is a difference between giving people a chance to prove their
innocence, and making it easier for them to try and have prosecutors
imprisoned for misconduct.

And reducing the number of cases would not change the calculus. If you had
fewer convicts you'd need fewer prosecutors, but the ratios for each
prosecutor would not change. The basic problem is that if you make it easier
for 1 person to hold the prosecutor accountable for actual misconduct, you
make it easier for 20-30 validly convicted people to harass prosecutors who
did nothing wrong.

~~~
mr_luc
Fewer convicts == fewer prosecutors is irrelevant. Why?

Because the number of prosecutors isn't the limiting factor in whether or not
we can safely do a better job of punishing bad prosecutors!

As you yourself stated, it's the legal apparatus of the justice system.
Punishing bad prosecutors without allowing abuse and harassment would take a
lot of resources, yes?

I was just pointing out that, with a smaller prison population, it wouldn't be
necessary to turn judges out into the streets. Freed-up legal resources could
be used to thoughtfully tackle the very real problems in the justice system.

~~~
rayiner
> As you yourself stated, it's the legal apparatus of the justice system.
> Punishing bad prosecutors without allowing abuse and harassment would take a
> lot of resources, yes?

You'd be subjecting individual prosecutors to a deluge of frivolous lawsuits,
each carrying the risk of criminal prosecution. The issue isn't whether the
system has the capacity to process those lawsuits, it's whether prosecutors
could still do their jobs while dealing with them.

~~~
mr_luc
_You_ provided that solution -- "lawsuits with a risk of criminal
prosecution."

That's your invention, so feel free to knock it down.

I'm simply observing a truth, and was in the original comment: the enormous
legal resources being wasted dealing with unnecessarily incarcerated people
would be useful in dealing with prosecutorial misconduct.

I won't claim it's a profound or useful insight. :)

And the justice system could stand to spend more on limiting the amount of
injustice it causes, an amount which the general population is starting to
realize is _not_ trivial.

(Also, I notice that you've amended your original comment to be a bit more
sympathetic).

------
6d0debc071
Community service, ten days in jail, and losing his law license. For wilfully
sending an innocent man to jail for twenty five years - having resigned
anyway. That's a fucking joke.

"What's newsworthy and novel about today's plea is that a prosecutor was
actually punished in a meaningful way for his transgressions."

I'm sure we'd all like to be so 'meaningfully' punished for serious crimes.
It's better than nothing - which seems to be the usual state of affairs - but
it's clearly one law for the rich and one law for the poor.

~~~
clort
> Community service, ten days in jail, and losing his law license.

500 hours of community service. In the US what does that mean, 3 months of
picking litter by the road in an orange jumpsuit? Or does it mean that he can
work for the prosecutors office for free for that time (obviously, he has a
lot of experience there)

He also lost his law licence. What does that mean, how old was the guy? I
don't know how it works in the US but if it effectively means forced
retirement then he will be on a reduced pension, and moreover can't go for any
cushy positions normally available for a retired prosecutor.

This also showed that judges ought to be asking this question of prosecutors..
I wonder if the defence can ask this question in the court and ask for similar
sanctions if it were proved later that the prosecutor knew something they
didn't disclose.

I wonder what has he been doing in the two years since this article was
written?

------
colin_jack
I'm not an expert on the UK legal system but one thing I enjoyed about the
Serial podcast was getting an insight into just how crazy the US system can
be.

Anyway 10 days is obviously nothing, especially when he's cost a man 25 years,
but at least it's an attempt to hold someone responsible for a despicable act.

~~~
smcl
If you found that interesting, there's an excellent episode of This American
Life called "The Arms Trader" which is another example of how messed up the
law can be over the pond. The FBI (or another TLA agency) basically played
both buyer and seller in a bogus arms deal, and managed to stitch up a
bumbling old man for facilitating the transaction. It's almost comical how
much handholding they needed to do with this guy to coax him into this
situation, until you realise they then came down on him like a ton of bricks.

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/292/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/292/the-arms-trader)

~~~
colin_jack
Ta will definitely give it a look, one nice thing about Serial is it put me
onto This American Life which I'm enjoying (in parts, some of it puts my teeth
on edge).

The depressing bit about the system is even when it's clear there's been a
potential miscarriage of justice, and some poor sod has spent years behind
bars on very shaky grounds, the system still tries its best to keep them there
without retrial.

------
catshirt
10 days is completely fucking negligible. i'd put myself in jail for 10 days
just for the experience.

disgusting.

~~~
t2015_08_25
i agree. i just wanted to raise the imagery of being a _prosecutor_ in jail.
if they're hostile to child molesters, imagine what they do to prosecutors!
yowza.

------
vaadu
Anderson should get life without parole. A message needs to be sent to
government officials that abuse there powers.

Taking 25 years from this innocent man is just the tip of the iceberg. He also
took 25 years from his relatives. And this is probably not an isolated
incident for him.

------
currentoor
Oh come on! He should at least be sent to jail for the same number of years he
took away from an innocent man.

~~~
georgeportillo
I completely fucking agree. This makes me really mad.

------
pmontra
10 days deserved vs 25 years undeserved? It's a joke. He should serve at least
25 years too.

~~~
struppi
I agree that 10 days is very short for what he did. But the other part of your
comment, "He should serve at least 25 years too", does not sound right to me
either.

I think that the primary goal of court scentences should not be revenge, but
"justice". Whatever that means. The possibility of punishment should be there
to deter people from committing crimes. And they should be there so that after
a crime, society can say: "See, we are serious about this. We _do not want_
people to do those things".

So, the "revenge" thinking (with the extreme of "Take one life, and we'll kill
you") does not seem right to me. Also, AFAIK, it was not designed into our
juridical system - Which was designed to get past the "eye for an eye" system
that was there before.

I also think that the primary goal of our prisons should be to re-integrate
people into society, not punish them, but this is a completely different
topic...

Edit: Clarified "The possibility of punishment should be there to deter"

~~~
a3n
> I agree that 10 days is very short for what he did. But the other part of
> your comment, "He should serve at least 25 years too", does not sound right
> to me either.

That prosecutor murdered 25 years of a man's life.

If murder deserves life in prison, then murdering 25 years of a man's life
deserves 25 years of prison.

~~~
balabaster
He should be required to assist the innocent man to get back on his feet, find
him a job, house him and set him up for success for what life he has left. If
the innocent was close to enough to retirement that he wouldn't be able to
retire, he should be required to pay into a pension plan that would have seen
the man comfortably through retirement and restore everything that this man
would have had the opportunity to provide for himself had he been free. Only
then would 10 days and 500 hours of community service seem to be even
marginally in the ball park of justice.

~~~
hwstar
If that were the law of the land, then a lot of prosecutors would quit and go
into private practice.

That said, I'm not saying that this behaviour should not go unpunished, an
attorney should be disbarred for this type of behaviour, and serve jail time
for a felony (i.e. 1-5 years in State prison) . I think the State and the
taxpayers should be made to pay the tab like a previous poster said because in
my opinion, they are just as guilty as the prosecutor for setting up the
environment in which this was allowed to happen.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
>If that were the law of the land, then a lot of prosecutors would quit and go
into private practice.

You present that almost like it would be a bad thing.

~~~
hwstar
No, it's just that attorneys won't take such a risk if the penalties are too
harsh. Also, the State and the electorate are just as complicit as the
prosecutors what it comes to sending innocent people to prison, and they
should be punished as well (Having to pay for restoring the person's life in
the free world after 10's of years in prison.)

Americans are bloodthirsty: lock 'em up and throw away the key. When the
elected district attorneys have pictures of handcuffs and leg irons on their
election posters, what does that tell you? (Said election poster seen in
Fresno County, California).

------
function_seven
For _10_ days. I suppose it's a start, though.

------
IndianAstronaut
I'm curious if there is a startup opportunity here to bring defense law to the
masses. There is legal zoom for paperwork type issues, but could better
knowledge of the law in the hands of a common man be a way to go?

~~~
mike_hearn
There have been various attempts to apply software to law, none of which were
very convincing.

The biggest impact has been on legal discovery. Often the evidence one side or
another needs is buried in massive quantities of documents, e.g. corporate
memos. It used to involve people manually going through every document. Now
computers can build a search engine just for that case, based on the documents
either being originally electronic, or scanned. So it's easier to find the
evidence you need to either prosecute or exonerate.

There have been attempts at legal 'expert systems'. Expert systems were an
offshoot of early AI where people were put through computerised interviews
that tried to automate otherwise skilled investigative procedures. I have not
heard of legal expert systems being in use anywhere, but I am not in the legal
industry so if they were, I wouldn't know about them. I suspect they're easier
to apply to things like routine property law than complex criminal cases.

There's also the Hammurabi project. That is very interesting, though again,
not relevant here. It tries to encode law in a custom programming language to
automatically build expert systems based on it. It's more useful for things
like navigating the absurdly complicated US tax code than criminal defence (of
course the two may sometimes overlap).

[http://mpoulshock.github.io/hammurabi/](http://mpoulshock.github.io/hammurabi/)

------
raverbashing
It's a start, but 10 days is a slap in the wrist

------
simonh
Does anyone know if the wrongfully convicted victim has the right to sue the
former prosecutor in civil court? I'd have thought so, but there's no mention
of this possibility in the article. If so, there would be a difference between
the criminal offence of withholding evidence versus the civil offence of
selling the victim down the river.

~~~
nske
In a system where people win trials for milions if the coffee you sell them is
too hot, I would be surprised if that victim can't literally crucify the Ken
Anderson guy in court for all that he has, in terms of years and money.

If not, then this is a really fucked-up system.

~~~
mdpopescu
Off-topic: you probably don't know the facts about the coffee case :)
[http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm](http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm)

------
spuz
This article is from 2013.

~~~
nmc
Updated: 10/16/2015 1:59 pm EDT

However it does not say what the update was.

~~~
corvus_sapiens
There is no difference. I just ran a diff.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffin...](https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-
godsey/for-the-first-time-ever-a_b_4221000.html)

------
maxxxxx
I don't understand why the punishment is not much tougher. People like
prosecutors, cops and judges are entrusted by society with power over people's
lives. Illegal behavior in such a role should be viewed much more severely. A
government can't work if it doesn't operate to the highest standards.

~~~
mdpopescu
You need to read Systemantics. The purpose of the government is not to help
_you_.

------
s_dev
"Let the punishment fit the crime" \- works both ways. Putting an innocent man
in prison is far far worse than than letting a guilty man basically go free as
is the case here. An important precedent but far far from ideal or whats
necessary.

------
jccc
I really, really appreciate this accountability (such as it is), but the moral
standard people are seeing here is too high.

The convicted man's guilt or innocence should not matter at all when judging
the conduct of the prosecutor.

------
corvus_sapiens
I don't get the point of discussing a two-year-old article about an event that
also occurred two years ago. Can someone enlighten me? Has something changed?

Edit: You can check for yourself.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffin...](https://web.archive.org/web/20150522105521/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-
godsey/for-the-first-time-ever-a_b_4221000.html)

The article wasn't updated. The only addition is that "Prison Tattoos" thing
at the bottom.

~~~
a3n
I guess when you run out of other outlets' articles to recycle, you have to
recycle your own.

------
bluesilver07
Michael Morton's book on the whole ordeal is a fascinating (and sometimes
depressing) read - [http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Life-Innocent-25-Year-
Journey/...](http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Life-Innocent-25-Year-
Journey/dp/147675683X). His answers on Quora -
[https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-
Morton-8](https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Morton-8)

------
akshat_h
Not sure if this has been raised somewhere else in this thread, but if
prosecutor didn't disclose evidence, did the defense also not know about the
evidence, considering it was the child of the accused. Is the balance of power
in favor of prosecution?

Also, now that the the accused in the case has been declared not guilty, will
there be an investigation into who actually committed the murder?

------
known
"Diverse society will fail" \--Putnam;

Let black Police deal with black Culprits;

[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...](http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

------
joesmo
10 days in jail? How about start with 25 years and then work your way up from
there? That'd be justice, but in the US that won't happen. We can always hope
he gets murdered in jail though, but they'll probably put him in solitary. I'm
still hoping though ...

------
kelvin0
Wow, nice slap on the wrist for having someong rot in prison for 25 years. And
justice for all ...

------
jhwhite
10 days in prison is not enough.

------
Gonzih
10 days in prison... how fair...

------
aagha
Whew! Thank goodness he got that community service time and 10 days in jail
for ruining a man's life for 25 years!

------
xacaxulu
Equal time served should be the punishment here. That would act as a deterrent
to such malicious behaviour in the future.

------
kabdib
A slap on the wrist. The prosecutor should have gone to jail for MUCH longer.

------
vincentleeuwen
Wow. 10 days vs 25 years. This seems like real justice...

------
maskedinvader
this was really really depressing to read. Feel bad for the man and I hope the
prosecutor suffers the rest of his days

------
hawleyal
5 days for 25 years, seems legit

------
davidgerard
2013

------
MaxFrax
cool, this is really interesting

------
GPGPU
Didn't Mike Nifong
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong)
go to jail for wrongfully _prosecuting_ those Duke Lacrosse players?

I didn't understand the title because only a Judge and/or Jury can convict
people.

