I've always been a defender of the DP but without a huge amount of over haul I don't think it needs to stand.

 

Since this was 23 years ago I would hope that there has been a huge amount of overhaul. The internet and cable at least has put a spotlight on many of these cases and people who ignore information in a rush to convict.

Yeah, I read it wrong. I read this story on it.

 

 

Carlos De Luna Execution: Texas Put To Death An Innocent Man, Columbia University Team Says

Since this was 23 years ago I would hope that there has been a huge amount of overhaul. The internet and cable at least has put a spotlight on many of these cases and people who ignore information in a rush to convict.

 

I think you have a lot more faith in the system correcting itself than I do. Even in this day and age it still seems quite rare that any sort of awareness of misconduct exists or that it even matters when it does.

I think you have a lot more faith in the system correcting itself than I do. Even in this day and age it still seems quite rare that any sort of awareness of misconduct exists or that it even matters when it does.

 

I don't know, it seems like there's always a spotlight on overzealous prosecution. With the internet and cable and the agendas behind different organizations I would hope that is in the back of the mind of someone who would consider behaving like the people did in this particular case. The system won't correct itself but keeping it out in the open should certainly help.

I don't know, it seems like there's always a spotlight on overzealous prosecution. With the internet and cable and the agendas behind different organizations I would hope that is in the back of the mind of someone who would consider behaving like the people did in this particular case. The system won't correct itself but keeping it out in the open should certainly help.

 

I follow a lot of justice system related news stories and it seems you really have to dig to find a lot of stuff like this. There are a few niche sites and organizations that keep track of issues like this, but most of the damning information comes out years later when most people have lost interest. Even then there might only be a blurb in a local paper about the issue. Occasionally cases will garner national attention, like this one. Even then there's a divided public about whether it's an issue or not, whether discussing it is being soft on crime, etc.

 

There have been a few people exonerated from death row sentences this year that didn't garner national attention (and the issues are almost always identical to those identified in the case that started the thread). To my knowledge, nothing has been changed in the respective systems that brought down the initial cases. Here's an interesting article on Mississippi's long time medical examiner and frequent witness for the prosecution. I wonder how many people know who this guy is.

I follow a lot of justice system related news stories and it seems you really have to dig to find a lot of stuff like this. There are a few niche sites and organizations that keep track of issues like this, but most of the damning information comes out years later when most people have lost interest. Even then there might only be a blurb in a local paper about the issue. Occasionally cases will garner national attention, like this one. Even then there's a divided public about whether it's an issue or not, whether discussing it is being soft on crime, etc.

 

There have been a few people exonerated from death row sentences this year that didn't garner national attention (and the issues are almost always identical to those identified in the case that started the thread). To my knowledge, nothing has been changed in the respective systems that brought down the initial cases. Here's an interesting article on Mississippi's long time medical examiner and frequent witness for the prosecution. I wonder how many people know who this guy is.

 

Thanks for the link Habib. There is some disturbing stuff in there. Then again I think the author took certain liberties with reality in expressing his opinion. For example: he writes "As unfair as this sounds, it isn’t at all out of the ordinary. Indigent defendants by definition can’t afford to hire their own experts. (This is one reason it’s important that state medical examiners and forensic experts retain their independence from prosecutors’ offices.) "

 

 

According to one of my partners who was a former federal public defender and now is the interim director of an Ohio public defender's office, if an indigent person has a public defender appointed and that public defender reasonably determines that a defense expert witness is needed, the Court will appoint and pay for the defense expert witness. My partner said it always happens particularly when the defendant is charged with murder. Fair trial issues compel the appointment of the defense expert witness. So unless my partner doesn't know what he's talking about, the author of the article is wrong about that point.

 

I do know that in the military courts, if defense wanted a defense expert witness they got it and the federal govt paid for it with basically no questions asked.

Thanks for the link Habib. There is some disturbing stuff in there. Then again I think the author took certain liberties with reality in expressing his opinion. For example: he writes "As unfair as this sounds, it isn’t at all out of the ordinary. Indigent defendants by definition can’t afford to hire their own experts. (This is one reason it’s important that state medical examiners and forensic experts retain their independence from prosecutors’ offices.) "

 

 

According to one of my partners who was a former federal public defender and now is the interim director of an Ohio public defender's office, if an indigent person has a public defender appointed and that public defender reasonably determines that a defense expert witness is needed, the Court will appoint and pay for the defense expert witness. My partner said it always happens particularly when the defendant is charged with murder. Fair trial issues compel the appointment of the defense expert witness. So unless my partner doesn't know what he's talking about, the author of the article is wrong about that point.

 

I do know that in the military courts, if defense wanted a defense expert witness they got it and the federal govt paid for it with basically no questions asked.

 

Good information. I would be curious to hear the author defend his point. It seems in the case he was discussing, funds for forensic experts weren't provided to the indigent defendant until the appeals stage, so I wonder if he was wrong about this too or if Mississippi does this differently.

 

At any rate, the misconduct of Steven Hayne or Michael West hasn't made much national news outside of niche groups. I think the idea that this sort of thing would be more scintillating or potential fallout would incentivize people to be more ethical might be a little overstated.

Actually Habib, I think you made my case for me. There are sites out there that are dedicated to bringing this stuff to the attention of the public and media outlets who love to run with it. 20 years ago there were few outlets and no way it would get the attention it does. I don't think there's any way that hasn't made zealous prosecutors give pause. Are they still out there? Obviously. As for having to dig, a google search came up with 3,660,000 links in a fifth of a second.

Actually Habib, I think you made my case for me. There are sites out there that are dedicated to bringing this stuff to the attention of the public and media outlets who love to run with it. 20 years ago there were few outlets and no way it would get the attention it does. I don't think there's any way that hasn't made zealous prosecutors give pause. Are they still out there? Obviously. As for having to dig, a google search came up with 3,660,000 links in a fifth of a second.

 

I don't think the existence of some sources necessarily means they have any influence. Even though the internet provides a lot of information access, hardly any of these stories garner any kind of national attention. How many people have been charged with misconduct in these cases?

 

How do you get your news 75? Do you google broad terms then click through millions of links?

I don't think the existence of some sources necessarily means they have any influence. Even though the internet provides a lot of information access, hardly any of these stories garner any kind of national attention. How many people have been charged with misconduct in these cases?

 

How do you get your news 75? Do you google broad terms then click through millions of links?

 

No but there are organizations who have specific interests that have people who's job it is to research and they do start with broad google terms and narrow it down as a research method. It doesn't have to garner national attention in order to give someone second thoughts. Particularly in this political climate. Someone is always looking to catch someone screwing up. I just think it has to have helped.

No but there are organizations who have specific interests that have people who's job it is to research and they do start with broad google terms and narrow it down as a research method. It doesn't have to garner national attention in order to give someone second thoughts. Particularly in this political climate. Someone is always looking to catch someone screwing up. I just think it has to have helped.

 

The problem though is that hardly any of these organizations are mainstream. It's easy to write off the "nuts." I'd be curious to know if there has been any kind of change in policies or any changes in the prosecution of misconduct since the rise of the internet.

The problem though is that hardly any of these organizations are mainstream. It's easy to write off the "nuts." I'd be curious to know if there has been any kind of change in policies or any changes in the prosecution of misconduct since the rise of the internet.

 

While these organizations may not be mainstream, the rise of the internet has made it much easier for defense counsel to get info on expert witnesses. For example, assume that a prosecutor notifies defense counsel that the govt intends to use Dr. Hayne as an expert. Competent defense counsel immediately starts trying to collect info on Dr. Hayne. Before the internet it was quite a task (and expensive) to run down past trials in which he testified to collect info and learn of his past poor testimony. Now defense counsel googles Dr. Hayne and comes up with links like the one you found. Defense counsel uses the info to ask the judge not to allow Dr. Hayne to testify or, if the court allows him to testify, to impeach his credibility on the stand. Frankly I think it would be easy to convince a jury or a judge that this fellow's testimony is no more reliable than a hooker testifying on the joys of virginity. The internet has made it much easier for defense counsel to collect, maintain and share info with one another on govt expert witnesses (and vice versa too. We should not ignore the fact that there are plenty of sham defense expert witnesses out there. There are).

 

I'm no criminal defense counsel and have only represented one person (a Marine Lance Corporal) in a criminal defense matter. It would be great to get Hearsay's perspective on this issue. You out there, my friend?