Supreme court decides you have no right to prove your innocence

LOL, tinfoil is such a retard. The dude was coerced into a "confession" because it's required for parole (long ago conservatives decided that innocent people don't deserve parole). After his court date, I'm pretty damn certain he could describe the crime, because it had been described to him a thousand times over. LOL @ tinfoil the retard.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0619/p90s01-usju.html

While his appeal was pending, Osborne applied for parole. As part of that process he was required to confess under oath to the rape and other crimes.
 
Watermark said:
It's not good evidence at all. He could've easily been fed the information. And accounts that didn't match up very well could've been interpreted as matching up well. Again, anecdotal accounts are pretty much useless as testimony. Only DNA and other physical evidence is iron-clad. Why are you so obtuse? What do you have to lose? Why prevent him from paying for his own DNA crime test? Only because you are sick and get pleasure out of seeing darkies in prison.
Click to expand...

WTF? You're a fucking idiot. Then you resort to making racist accusations. you're fucking desperate. The case is obvious. The idiot gave up his right to use the DNA evidence DURING HIS FUCKING TRIAL.

No matter what you say, this is a fact. The guy has not been denied due process.

You suck at arguing. you can't even form an argument. All you can do is make baseless accusations which amount to strawmen
 
Watermark said:
LOL, tinfoil is such a retard. The dude was coerced into a "confession" because it's required for parole (long ago conservatives decided that innocent people don't deserve parole). After his court date, I'm pretty damn certain he could describe the crime, because it had been described to him a thousand times over. LOL @ tinfoil the retard.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0619/p90s01-usju.html

While his appeal was pending, Osborne applied for parole. As part of that process he was required to confess under oath to the rape and other crimes.
Click to expand...


Why do you love criminals? I hope you get to be a victim someday. You deserve it
 
tinfoil said:
Why do you love criminals? I hope you get to be a victim someday. You deserve it
Click to expand...

Why do you love evil? I hope one day you spend the rest of your life in prison for a crime you didn't commit, and the state refuses to allow you to pay to have evidence that would prove your innocence processed. You deserve it. Justice is sweet. :clink:
 
I wonder if he had been convicted on the prehistoric DNA test, as it implicates so many black men, if he would now have access to a more modern test.
 
I don't know. I know his defense attorney made a tactical move to refuse to use the DNA test simply because it was so inaccurate. Tinfuck considers that him passing up his "opportunity".
 
Last edited:
tinfoil said:
WTF? You're a fucking idiot. Then you resort to making racist accusations. you're fucking desperate. The case is obvious. The idiot gave up his right to use the DNA evidence DURING HIS FUCKING TRIAL.

No matter what you say, this is a fact. The guy has not been denied due process.

You suck at arguing. you can't even form an argument. All you can do is make baseless accusations which amount to strawmen
Click to expand...

You never give up the right to prove your innocence, you immoral scumbag. You are a criminal.
 
the guy shouldnt have been stupid. He should be in jail for being a retard. :)

justice is sweet, i hope he enjoys getting butt raped because he's a fucking retard that confesses to crimes he didn't commit. LOL.
 
∂˚;454551 said:
the guy shouldnt have been stupid. He should be in jail for being a retard. :)

justice is sweet, i hope he enjoys getting butt raped because he's a fucking retard that confesses to crimes he didn't commit. LOL.
Click to expand...

Actually he confessed to get parole, so if he hadn't confessed he would've never been let out of prison. Yeah, that's right, only guilty people get parole in Alaska. Makes a hell of a lot of sense. Tinfoil likes to make it seem like he made the confession at the trial, because it fits his anti-justice, pro-evil agenda.
 
"In an opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., he and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy also said that, if a defense lawyer fails to seek DNA testing during trial, and does so for tactical reasons, there is no constitutional right to seek access following conviction."

This is the key point. This isn't about morals or what makes you feel all tingly watermark, it's about what is and what isn't constitutional - you know, what the SC's job revolves around. If someone has due process and they deny dna testing in trial it's true that they don't have a constitutional right to dna testing after trial. If you disagree provide evidence to the contrary rather than being an emo crybaby.
 
∂˚;454558 said:
"In an opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., he and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy also said that, if a defense lawyer fails to seek DNA testing during trial, and does so for tactical reasons, there is no constitutional right to seek access following conviction."

This is the key point. This isn't about morals or what makes you feel all tingly watermark, it's about what is and what isn't constitutional - you know, what the SC's job revolves around. If someone has due process and they deny dna testing it's true that they don't have a constitutional right to dna testing. If you disagree provide evidence to the contrary rather than being an emo crybaby.
Click to expand...

Justice Souter issued a dissent saying that officials in Alaska had “demonstrated a combination of inattentiveness and intransigence” that add up to “procedural unfairness that violates the due process clause.”
Click to expand...



Violates the constitutional right to due process, according to justices who actually care about the constitution, rather than locking up as many people as possible, innocent or not.
 
DNA should always be used when available. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise it a fucking ideologue who has no sense of justice AND/OR fairness.

If DNA is there, that's your answer, the rest is semantics.
 
lots of Defendants have succumbed to evidence that late was proved to be wrong. I aam a criminal defense attorney, I have told clients that the evidence against them was enough to convict them. If later DNA evidence was enough to prove me wrong my client should still have the right to that evidence.
 
Watermark said:
Actually he confessed to get parole, so if he hadn't confessed he would've never been let out of prison. Yeah, that's right, only guilty people get parole in Alaska. Makes a hell of a lot of sense. Tinfoil likes to make it seem like he made the confession at the trial, because it fits his anti-justice, pro-evil agenda.
Click to expand...
are you a 5th grader or something? What a fucking dork.
The guy is fucking guilty you idiot. His lawyer avoided the DNA tests like a plauge. God damn, you are seriously an idiot
 
∂˚;454558 said:
"In an opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., he and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy also said that, if a defense lawyer fails to seek DNA testing during trial, and does so for tactical reasons, there is no constitutional right to seek access following conviction."

This is the key point. This isn't about morals or what makes you feel all tingly watermark, it's about what is and what isn't constitutional - you know, what the SC's job revolves around. If someone has due process and they deny dna testing in trial it's true that they don't have a constitutional right to dna testing after trial. If you disagree provide evidence to the contrary rather than being an emo crybaby.
Click to expand...
Bullshit, ANY evidence that proves actual innocence regardless of when that evidence is made available should be accepted. Innocence is innocence and NOTHING else matters. NOTHING.
 
Watermark said:
Why do you love evil? I hope one day you spend the rest of your life in prison for a crime you didn't commit, and the state refuses to allow you to pay to have evidence that would prove your innocence processed. You deserve it. Justice is sweet. :clink:
Click to expand...

But then, he probably won't be such a dumbass to CONFESS TO THE FUCKING CRIME!!
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But then, he probably won't be such a dumbass to CONFESS TO THE FUCKING CRIME!!
Click to expand...

Yes, he would totally not be the sort of stupid ignoramous it would require for you to "confess" to the crime in order to secure parole and therefore release. That would be utterly retarded. I would totally stay locked up for the rest of my life and be honest rather than lie and get out of prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top