I don't think the case the author picked to match the topic was persuasive. When Paylor pled guilty, he invalidated any claim of Hersl's corruption he may have had, so by a strict reading of the...
I don't think the case the author picked to match the topic was persuasive. When Paylor pled guilty, he invalidated any claim of Hersl's corruption he may have had, so by a strict reading of the law, he couldn't have had his conviction vacated because he agreed to accept it. Now, his case is an excellent example of legal costs and plea deals forcing the innocent into prison, and discovery rulings preventing defense lawyers from getting discrediting evidence, but I don't think the "his prosecutors contradicted themselves" sticks when technically he contradicted himself by pleading guilty but still claiming innocence.
Innocent folks routinely plead guilty since they are offered deals. Juries are fickle, so you can take the plea and get 5 years or risk trial and get life.
Innocent folks routinely plead guilty since they are offered deals. Juries are fickle, so you can take the plea and get 5 years or risk trial and get life.
I know, and I mentioned this as an issue Paylor's situation is a prime example of. Unfortunately if he had pled not guilty and got life, Hersl's corruption coming out and discrediting his report...
I know, and I mentioned this as an issue Paylor's situation is a prime example of. Unfortunately if he had pled not guilty and got life, Hersl's corruption coming out and discrediting his report and presumed witness testimony would have probably vacated Paylor's conviction no matter what his sentence was.
Is the prosecutors bringing charges at all not considered making a claim? If they brought charges against him and then brought charges against the officer, wouldn't that be two contradictory claims?
Is the prosecutors bringing charges at all not considered making a claim? If they brought charges against him and then brought charges against the officer, wouldn't that be two contradictory claims?
Yes and no. They brought a claim against the officer after receiving more info from the FBI's own, separate investigation, so they can argue their position changed for a legitimate reason. That...
Yes and no. They brought a claim against the officer after receiving more info from the FBI's own, separate investigation, so they can argue their position changed for a legitimate reason. That would still leave Paylor in the lurch though because he voluntarily accepted guilt. @ignorabimus
I mean I am not a lawyer, but I think it's quite dangerous to accept admissions of guilt absolutely in the legal system, and I believe that defendents can still appeal their cases if new evidence...
I mean I am not a lawyer, but I think it's quite dangerous to accept admissions of guilt absolutely in the legal system, and I believe that defendents can still appeal their cases if new evidence (like here) comes to light? There's kind of an obvious risk that if we accept admissions of guilt absolutely people will abuse this (e.g. if you are a crime boss who killed someone just find someone who will accept money to admit guilt). I think given that people are often easily pressured into pleading guilty it should be permisseable for them to appeal in the future?
I'm also not a lawyer, but I don't believe you can appeal since no decision was made by a judge. You reached an agreement with the prosecutors to bypass the trial. I'm not sure whether you could...
I'm also not a lawyer, but I don't believe you can appeal since no decision was made by a judge. You reached an agreement with the prosecutors to bypass the trial. I'm not sure whether you could request a retrial, either, since there was no trial in the first place.
If there are any lawyers around, please chime in
edit: I've finished reading the article, and I think this is the relevant portion (but in general, I'm not sure what happens in other cases re: plea appeals in light of new evidence)
The court didn’t vacate Paylor’s conviction, but for Paylor’s lawyers, it did the next best thing. The court’s ruling returned the case to a lower court for a hearing at which Paylor’s attorneys will have the chance to present evidence of the breadth of Hersl’s misconduct, particularly any instances that preceded Paylor’s guilty plea. The ruling authorized Paylor’s attorneys to conduct discovery, meaning they can now have access to records they were previously denied; plus, they can depose Hersl, asking him questions under oath.
I am no expert but I feel like, at the very least, the spirit of the point of the prosecution is clearly violated in an example like this, and is related to many cases of disturbingly false...
I am no expert but I feel like, at the very least, the spirit of the point of the prosecution is clearly violated in an example like this, and is related to many cases of disturbingly false conviction. To my vague memory I seem to recall that the point of the prosecution/state in a trial is to actually seek the truth/justice, not just be "technically correct". The defense gets to basically do whatever they can within the bounds of the law to defend their client, but that behavior is not supposed to be the same for the state.
"Well he said he was guilty" feels absurdly shallow given the mountains of evidence that plea deals are over pushed, public defenders are some mix of mediocre/overworked/underpaid, and prosecutors know that one of their best strategies is to threaten maximum charges to scare someone into a plea deal.
Isn't this the point? He plead guilty and then they argued a separate case against someone else which relied on that verdict being not true! Under the prosecution's reasoning they cannot both be...
Isn't this the point? He plead guilty and then they argued a separate case against someone else which relied on that verdict being not true! Under the prosecution's reasoning they cannot both be guilty...
You have to read the article for the headline to make sense I think. From the first paragraph:
You have to read the article for the headline to make sense I think. From the first paragraph:
When Baltimore police arrested Keyon Paylor in 2014, one of two things was true.
Either Paylor hid a gun that the police found, or the police planted the gun and framed Paylor.
The two things cannot both be true. Even so, the U.S. Department of Justice presented the first version as true while convicting Paylor of being a felon in possession of a firearm, then presented the second version as true while prosecuting a corrupt police detective who had arrested Paylor.
Prosecutors really don't get enough focus as a larger part of the problem with the country. Due to how metrics are handled and perceived, they're literally incentivized to make sure they don't...
Prosecutors really don't get enough focus as a larger part of the problem with the country.
Due to how metrics are handled and perceived, they're literally incentivized to make sure they don't lose if they want to go on to bigger and better things. And low and behold that attracts some very disturbing people and practices, and there's not a lot of common sense oversight/situations.
In this case the convicted/his counsel brought this evidence to light, but it's insane that they even have the gall to make the argument and just leave it to the convicted/defense attorney to do something about it.
It's especially disturbing given the very well defined intentions of the prosecutor and defense in criminal law. The defense is supposed to support their client to the best of their ability without lying NO MATTER WHAT. The prosecution however actually has rules that are supposed to enforce the truth and a proper outcome, not a WIN.
Despite this we have these appealed cases all over the place and next to 0 repercussions for the prosecutors in questions. I will straight up say that one of the most damning things about Kamala Harris is her prosecutorial record, but at the same time I'm a pretty big believer that it's hard to fault her for playing the game that's been setup to encourage that very behavior.
As for this case-
The court didn’t vacate Paylor’s conviction, but for Paylor’s lawyers, it did the next best thing. The court’s ruling returned the case to a lower court for a hearing at which Paylor’s attorneys will have the chance to present evidence of the breadth of Hersl’s misconduct, particularly any instances that preceded Paylor’s guilty plea. The ruling authorized Paylor’s attorneys to conduct discovery, meaning they can now have access to records they were previously denied; plus, they can depose Hersl, asking him questions under oath.
I'm pretty mixed on this. It sure as hell feels like the conviction should be vacated due to the clear evidence of the trial being, at the bare minimum, highly suspect.
On the other hand hopefully this lower court retrial can set exactly that precedent or get some law moving because it will bring to light just how disgustingly broken all this is right now.
This 100%. And even more disturbing to me is the fact that a relatively small number of prosecutors disproportionately apply the death penalty to cases. From the report:
the application of the death penalty is—and always has been—less about the circumstances of the the offense or the characteristics of the person who committed the crime, and more a function of the personality and predilections of the local prosecutors entrusted with the power to seek the ultimate punishment.
Where is the evidence for this comment? There is no pay bump for winning a case, there is no demerit for losing. No one is being hired for their wins. Prosecutors are encouraged to go where the...
Where is the evidence for this comment?
Due to how metrics are handled and perceived, they're literally incentivized to make sure they don't lose if they want to go on to bigger and better things.
There is no pay bump for winning a case, there is no demerit for losing. No one is being hired for their wins. Prosecutors are encouraged to go where the evidence leads, and are obligated to drop cases if they don’t believe they are making true claims. Bragging about “wins” or a win rate would be a failing strategy in any interview with any prosecutor I’ve met. I am familiar with this system and, at least in my anecdotal experience, don’t see the evidence for that statement.
Edit for one other point I missed: Criminal justice “metrics” are notoriously difficult to track. State-level data is often collected in so fragmented a way as to not be useful. The idea that individual prosecutors have win rates that are tracked and incentivized is such a foreign concept to the way the system actually works.
Prosecutors are generally evaluated based on (a) how many cases they win and (b) what percentage of their cases they win? Even if individual prosecutors aren't (which I think is untrue) this...
Prosecutors are generally evaluated based on (a) how many cases they win and (b) what percentage of their cases they win? Even if individual prosecutors aren't (which I think is untrue) this pressure still exists at a system level because politicians want the number of prosecutions to be high so that they can claim they are being "tough on crime".
If you want to bump up the numbers it is a lot easy to take cases against defendants who don't understand the legal system and are easily bullied into taking a plea bargain. Or use your prosecutorial discretion to chase lots of small cases you might otherwise ignore.
No, I am not aware of any office that evaluates based on those criteria. Typically written work product, court presence, communications with victims, witnesses, and media, are all considered, but...
No, I am not aware of any office that evaluates based on those criteria. Typically written work product, court presence, communications with victims, witnesses, and media, are all considered, but wins are not. It just isn’t something that factors in. As for bullying pro se defendants, defense counsel is typically involved in plea discussions unless a defendant refuses counsel. This is a constitutional requirement if jail time is on the table. Defense counsel is required to educate their client about the system and the impact of a plea. No prosecutor is out there looking for smaller cases to “bump up their numbers,” most have those types of case files put on their desk by police agencies. I’d really like some sources on some of the stuff you are saying, because it just doesn’t match up with how the system actually works in at least the several states with which I’m familiar.
I'll try to give more detailed examples later, but I feel like there's also an argument of "where is the evidence against", when you have cases like the Cosby trial, or the disturbingly high...
Where is the evidence for this comment?
I'll try to give more detailed examples later, but I feel like there's also an argument of "where is the evidence against", when you have cases like the Cosby trial, or the disturbingly high amount of suspect if not outright incorrect convictions.
There's also straight up the politics pipeline for prosecutors, and I've yet to see one run on anything other than having a high conviction rate and being "tough on crime"
sticks out to memory and points out the high number of cases where this misconduct/poor convictions occur, and the complete lack of consequences for it.
I get that they are separate cases but wouldn't the defense for the police officer know of the case against the felon and use that against the prosecution?
I get that they are separate cases but wouldn't the defense for the police officer know of the case against the felon and use that against the prosecution?
I don't think the case the author picked to match the topic was persuasive. When Paylor pled guilty, he invalidated any claim of Hersl's corruption he may have had, so by a strict reading of the law, he couldn't have had his conviction vacated because he agreed to accept it. Now, his case is an excellent example of legal costs and plea deals forcing the innocent into prison, and discovery rulings preventing defense lawyers from getting discrediting evidence, but I don't think the "his prosecutors contradicted themselves" sticks when technically he contradicted himself by pleading guilty but still claiming innocence.
Innocent folks routinely plead guilty since they are offered deals. Juries are fickle, so you can take the plea and get 5 years or risk trial and get life.
I know, and I mentioned this as an issue Paylor's situation is a prime example of. Unfortunately if he had pled not guilty and got life, Hersl's corruption coming out and discrediting his report and presumed witness testimony would have probably vacated Paylor's conviction no matter what his sentence was.
Hindsight is 20/20. I don't think it's a wise decision to gamble your life in prison on a hope like that.
Is the prosecutors bringing charges at all not considered making a claim? If they brought charges against him and then brought charges against the officer, wouldn't that be two contradictory claims?
Yes and no. They brought a claim against the officer after receiving more info from the FBI's own, separate investigation, so they can argue their position changed for a legitimate reason. That would still leave Paylor in the lurch though because he voluntarily accepted guilt.
@ignorabimus
I mean I am not a lawyer, but I think it's quite dangerous to accept admissions of guilt absolutely in the legal system, and I believe that defendents can still appeal their cases if new evidence (like here) comes to light? There's kind of an obvious risk that if we accept admissions of guilt absolutely people will abuse this (e.g. if you are a crime boss who killed someone just find someone who will accept money to admit guilt). I think given that people are often easily pressured into pleading guilty it should be permisseable for them to appeal in the future?
I'm also not a lawyer, but I don't believe you can appeal since no decision was made by a judge. You reached an agreement with the prosecutors to bypass the trial. I'm not sure whether you could request a retrial, either, since there was no trial in the first place.
If there are any lawyers around, please chime in
edit: I've finished reading the article, and I think this is the relevant portion (but in general, I'm not sure what happens in other cases re: plea appeals in light of new evidence)
I am no expert but I feel like, at the very least, the spirit of the point of the prosecution is clearly violated in an example like this, and is related to many cases of disturbingly false conviction. To my vague memory I seem to recall that the point of the prosecution/state in a trial is to actually seek the truth/justice, not just be "technically correct". The defense gets to basically do whatever they can within the bounds of the law to defend their client, but that behavior is not supposed to be the same for the state.
"Well he said he was guilty" feels absurdly shallow given the mountains of evidence that plea deals are over pushed, public defenders are some mix of mediocre/overworked/underpaid, and prosecutors know that one of their best strategies is to threaten maximum charges to scare someone into a plea deal.
Isn't this the point? He plead guilty and then they argued a separate case against someone else which relied on that verdict being not true! Under the prosecution's reasoning they cannot both be guilty...
Wouldn't prosecutors changing their story always help the defense? Or was the defense just not aware of it?
You have to read the article for the headline to make sense I think. From the first paragraph:
Prosecutors really don't get enough focus as a larger part of the problem with the country.
Due to how metrics are handled and perceived, they're literally incentivized to make sure they don't lose if they want to go on to bigger and better things. And low and behold that attracts some very disturbing people and practices, and there's not a lot of common sense oversight/situations.
In this case the convicted/his counsel brought this evidence to light, but it's insane that they even have the gall to make the argument and just leave it to the convicted/defense attorney to do something about it.
It's especially disturbing given the very well defined intentions of the prosecutor and defense in criminal law. The defense is supposed to support their client to the best of their ability without lying NO MATTER WHAT. The prosecution however actually has rules that are supposed to enforce the truth and a proper outcome, not a WIN.
Despite this we have these appealed cases all over the place and next to 0 repercussions for the prosecutors in questions. I will straight up say that one of the most damning things about Kamala Harris is her prosecutorial record, but at the same time I'm a pretty big believer that it's hard to fault her for playing the game that's been setup to encourage that very behavior.
As for this case-
I'm pretty mixed on this. It sure as hell feels like the conviction should be vacated due to the clear evidence of the trial being, at the bare minimum, highly suspect.
On the other hand hopefully this lower court retrial can set exactly that precedent or get some law moving because it will bring to light just how disgustingly broken all this is right now.
This 100%. And even more disturbing to me is the fact that a relatively small number of prosecutors disproportionately apply the death penalty to cases. From the report:
Where is the evidence for this comment?
There is no pay bump for winning a case, there is no demerit for losing. No one is being hired for their wins. Prosecutors are encouraged to go where the evidence leads, and are obligated to drop cases if they don’t believe they are making true claims. Bragging about “wins” or a win rate would be a failing strategy in any interview with any prosecutor I’ve met. I am familiar with this system and, at least in my anecdotal experience, don’t see the evidence for that statement.
Edit for one other point I missed: Criminal justice “metrics” are notoriously difficult to track. State-level data is often collected in so fragmented a way as to not be useful. The idea that individual prosecutors have win rates that are tracked and incentivized is such a foreign concept to the way the system actually works.
Prosecutors are generally evaluated based on (a) how many cases they win and (b) what percentage of their cases they win? Even if individual prosecutors aren't (which I think is untrue) this pressure still exists at a system level because politicians want the number of prosecutions to be high so that they can claim they are being "tough on crime".
If you want to bump up the numbers it is a lot easy to take cases against defendants who don't understand the legal system and are easily bullied into taking a plea bargain. Or use your prosecutorial discretion to chase lots of small cases you might otherwise ignore.
No, I am not aware of any office that evaluates based on those criteria. Typically written work product, court presence, communications with victims, witnesses, and media, are all considered, but wins are not. It just isn’t something that factors in. As for bullying pro se defendants, defense counsel is typically involved in plea discussions unless a defendant refuses counsel. This is a constitutional requirement if jail time is on the table. Defense counsel is required to educate their client about the system and the impact of a plea. No prosecutor is out there looking for smaller cases to “bump up their numbers,” most have those types of case files put on their desk by police agencies. I’d really like some sources on some of the stuff you are saying, because it just doesn’t match up with how the system actually works in at least the several states with which I’m familiar.
I'll try to give more detailed examples later, but I feel like there's also an argument of "where is the evidence against", when you have cases like the Cosby trial, or the disturbingly high amount of suspect if not outright incorrect convictions.
There's also straight up the politics pipeline for prosecutors, and I've yet to see one run on anything other than having a high conviction rate and being "tough on crime"
This incident: https://innocenceproject.org/ken-anderson-michael-morton-prosecutorial-misconduct-jail/
sticks out to memory and points out the high number of cases where this misconduct/poor convictions occur, and the complete lack of consequences for it.
I get that they are separate cases but wouldn't the defense for the police officer know of the case against the felon and use that against the prosecution?
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.