Supreme court decides you have no right to prove your innocence

Watermark said:
Why are you so scared of justice Tinfuck? Why are you acting like, if this is proved conclusively, you'll explode? It's just because you want niggers in prison, innocent or not. THAT'S IT. You're a fucking racist, end of story.
Click to expand...


lol Very funny. Your strawmen get more and more ridiculous
 
Watermark said:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Say you're innocent you stay in prison.

Say you're guilty and you're let free.

Seems like a pretty easy decision to me. Pretending that doesn't count as coercion is disingenuous.

LOL

NEXT!!!
Click to expand...

Not if you're a man.

You're nothing but an apologist and not even a very good one, at that.

He CONFESSED and he's GUILTY.

END OF STORY

NEXT!!

:lmao:
 
Soc -- maybe as a criminal defense attorney you can explain why the prosecution wouldn't have sought the more accurate test. Seems like standard procedure to me, unless they thought there was a chance it would exonerate him.
 
Watermark said:
In the beginning of this thread, I was under the assumption that it didn't exist. The Dallas article says it did. The prosecution probably just thought that the evidence against him was enough to convict without bothering to get the advanced test.
Click to expand...

Seems very unlikely to me that a prosecution team would pass on iron-clad evidence against the defendant in any instance, let alone because they had testimony from "witnesses" (which is highly unreliable).
 
So let me get this straight, because of this one decision, it proves that all conservative are heartless and can't be human beings..

Okey dokey :rolleyes:
 
ib1yysguy said:
Soc -- maybe as a criminal defense attorney you can explain why the prosecution wouldn't have sought the more accurate test. Seems like standard procedure to me, unless they thought there was a chance it would exonerate him.
Click to expand...


it's pretty fucking clear that they couldn't force the test. The guy's lawyer had the choice. Are you really so dense you can't glean that info from the articles?

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

WHY can't you tell the difference?

"It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law, than that he should escape."
Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788. ME 7:30

"It is more a duty [of the Attorney General] to save an innocent than to convict a guilty man."
Thomas Jefferson: Biographical Sketch of Peyton Randolph. ME 18:139
 
Watermark said:
Disgusting. How can conservatives call themselves human beings?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/6/18/134724/686

Supreme Court Rejects Right to DNA Test to Prove Innocence
By Jeralyn, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:47:24 PM EST
Tags: dna testing (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In a setback to requests for DNA testing by convicted inmates, the Supreme Court today decided the Alaska case of District Attorney's Office vs. Osborne. The opinion is here (pdf).



The Innocence Project (which represented Osborne) calls the decision disappointing but of limited impact. ScotusBlog has more. .[More...]

In other words, Alaskans need to change their law. Justice Stevens dissented. Background here

Former FBI Director William Sessions explained why the decision should have gone the other way:
Click to expand...

Crime is big business in the US .. the greatest prison nation in human history. We have 5% of the world's population, but we hold 25% of all the prisoners in the world.

The prison/industrial complex, police, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and others all profit from "crime."

The push against DNA testing isn't because it isn't conclusive, they stand against it because it is conclusive and it illustrates the faulty and biased policies of prosecutors, police, and the courts.

We have a horrible and biased system of injustice in the US .. known, documented, studied, and proven .. yet no one halls the balls to do anything about it.
 
Alaska needs to step up to the plate and write a law that allows access to such things. Personally I'd write one that allowed them access to evidence (if they could pay for it, or get another to) for their entire stay in order to attempt to clear themselves of the crime.
 
Damocles said:
Alaska needs to step up to the plate and write a law that allows access to such things. Personally I'd write one that allowed them access to evidence (if they could pay for it, or get another to) for their entire stay in order to attempt to clear themselves of the crime.
Click to expand...


what's the trial for? If they waive tests during trial, do they get to ask for the tests later. Because that's what this case is about
 
tinfoil said:
what's the trial for? If they waive tests during trial, do they get to ask for the tests later. Because that's what this case is about
Click to expand...


Next, it will be "I don't want to tesitfy in my behalf" and then later "I want to testify now, even though I plead guilty and was convicted"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top