Prosecutorial misconduct in my back yard?

[Woobie]

I think the people who say: "they brought charges so there must be something there" really need to think about that.

I don't know if this guy is guilty of something or not, but what I do know is that he hasn't been convicted of anything or even gone to trial yet. Do we believe in the presumption of innocence or not.

A persistent problem I have seen are jurors thinking: "well, this is in court, so there must be some truth to it." Friends, it's pretty easy to get a case to trial. Stop it. Don't think that way.

At what point did the seriousness of the allegations supersede facts? Has it always been that way, i.e. "take him out back and lynch him!", or is it a product of our sound bite culture?

 

[Doug]

At what point did the seriousness of the allegations supersede facts? Has it always been that way, i.e. "take him out back and lynch him!", or is it a product of our sound bite culture?

It has always happened that way with regard to politics. Investigations must be conducted against Republicans because the allegations are so serious and reputations are trashed if there is no conviction because it is implied they covered up so well. With Democrats, no investigation is ever started unless there is irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing and, if there is no conviction, they are declared victims of malicious prosecution.

 

[SmileDocHill]

I think the people who say: "they brought charges so there must be something there" really need to think about that.

I don't know if this guy is guilty of something or not, but what I do know is that he hasn't been convicted of anything or even gone to trial yet. Do we believe in the presumption of innocence or not.

A persistent problem I have seen are jurors thinking: "well, this is in court, so there must be some truth to it." Friends, it's pretty easy to get a case to trial. Stop it. Don't think that way.

I hope my post wasn't taken that way because I agree 100% with what you said in the post I quoted. I was actually asking if I was reading it correctly. Did all the charges get dropped or is he still facing other charges? I have no judgements either way, I simply could not ascertain it from the article.

 

[Fargo]

I hope my post wasn't taken that way because I agree 100% with what you said in the post I quoted. I was actually asking if I was reading it correctly. Did all the charges get dropped or is he still facing other charges? I have no judgements either way, I simply could not ascertain it from the article.

It appears there were three separate cases charged with a total of at least four victims. I don't know how many counts each case has. As I read the article, the first case was tried and the jury acquitted him. The second case was tried, including counts on two victims, and the judge entered an acquittal after the prosecutor concealed exculpatory evidence. There appears to be a third case, which is awaiting trial. It appears that he had not posted bond on that case, but because of the issues in the second case the judge ordered him released without bond while awaiting that trial.

I have no personal knowledge of this case, but from the judge's behavior it appears to me that he thinks it fairly unlikely that the third trial happens or believes that it will result in an acquittal.

 

[HoughMade]

Porter County deputy prosecutor fired | Northwest Indiana Crime and Court | nwitimes.com

 

[HoughMade]

I hope my post wasn't taken that way because I agree 100% with what you said in the post I quoted. I was actually asking if I was reading it correctly. Did all the charges get dropped or is he still facing other charges? I have no judgements either way, I simply could not ascertain it from the article.

I understand. I'm a bit prickly because even though I don't do criminal defense, it seems like all the civil cases I defend are tried in the media before any of the facts are known.

 

[oldpink]

Porter County deputy prosecutor fired | Northwest Indiana Crime and Court | nwitimes.com

She should get the Mike Nifong treatment in addition to that, i.e. disbarment.
Not only did she engage in flagrantly illegal behavior, but she compromised any of the molestation cases that may have been legitimate in the process.
What a disgusting individual.

 

[j706]

The sad and scary thing about this is that it happens more than people think. Research the David Camm case. People involved in his case need to be in prison IMO.

 

[HoughMade]

No claims of prosecutorial misconduct in this one, but it's really an interesting case study. The judge saw that the jury was biased and did what he had to do.

Judge tosses guilty verdict in day care battery case | Northwest Indiana Crime and Court | nwitimes.com

 

[Beowulf]

Four counts of child molesting.

These sort of issues used to be solved differently.

I know, right? Normally, the Church would just move the priest to a different parish and give out a little hush money to the families involved.

 

[david890]

It has always happened that way with regard to politics. Investigations must be conducted against Republicans because the allegations are so serious and reputations are trashed if there is no conviction because it is implied they covered up so well. With Democrats, no investigation is ever started unless there is irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing and, if there is no conviction, they are declared victims of malicious prosecution.

You do realize that an "investigation" is undertaken to determine if allegations are true or not? Do the police not "investigate" a crime in order to understand what happened? Yes, reps do get trashed even without a conviction, but that works for both parties.

BTW, why did the GOP have *7* Benghazi hearings if there was "irrefutable" evidence for the first? Or did you mean that Dems only investigate when there's irrefutable evidence? That seems strange; if there's irrefutable evidence, why is further investigation necessary? When did the Dems instigate 7 hearings regarding a GOP official???

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You do realize that an "investigation" is undertaken to determine if allegations are true or not? Do the police not "investigate" a crime in order to understand what happened? Yes, reps do get trashed even without a conviction, but that works for both parties.

BTW, why did the GOP have *7* Benghazi hearings if there was "irrefutable" evidence for the first? Or did you mean that Dems only investigate when there's irrefutable evidence? That seems strange; if there's irrefutable evidence, why is further investigation necessary? When did the Dems instigate 7 hearings regarding a GOP official???

Oliver North, Scooter Libby, John Ashcroft, Trent Lott . . . those are the ones I can think of offhand. Oh yeah, George H. W. Bush, the original "the seriousness of the charge is more important than the lack of evidence . . . "

Oh, and as for the 7 Benghazi hearings . . . let me remind you that the Office of the President, the State Department, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to cooperate with any of the committees and the Democrats on the committees actively hindered the investigations. And there are those 33k missing emails from H's bathroom email server.

 

[david890]

Oliver North, Scooter Libby, John Ashcroft, Trent Lott . . . those are the ones I can think of offhand. Oh yeah, George H. W. Bush, the original "the seriousness of the charge is more important than the lack of evidence . . . "

Oh, and as for the 7 Benghazi hearings . . . let me remind you that the Office of the President, the State Department, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to cooperate with any of the committees and the Democrats on the committees actively hindered the investigations. And there are those 33k missing emails from H's bathroom email server.

I asked about SEVEN investigations of ONE GOP official, not individual investigations of multiple GOP officials. There's a difference.

"Refused to cooperate"? Those were Trey Gowdy's "let's throw shiat on the wall and see what sticks" investigations. When the 1st finds nothing, then the 2nd, then the 3rd, expect some pushback from the other party.

And what of the 22 MILLION missing GOP e-mails? When will Gowdy get around to investigating that even once? Hasn't the GOP had 7 years to look into it??

 

[oldpink]

I asked about SEVEN investigations of ONE GOP official, not individual investigations of multiple GOP officials. There's a difference.

"Refused to cooperate"? Those were Trey Gowdy's "let's throw shiat on the wall and see what sticks" investigations. When the 1st finds nothing, then the 2nd, then the 3rd, expect some pushback from the other party.

And what of the 22 MILLION missing GOP e-mails? When will Gowdy get around to investigating that even once? Hasn't the GOP had 7 years to look into it??

Oh look, squirrel!

 

[thunderchicken]

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I do know enough to say that sometimes there are circumstances which are suppressed and can't be brought up during a trial. Having enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of doubt is a pretty high standard. Sometimes that evidence can be very hard to prove but doesn't change the fact it happened. There are people who have served or are serving time for crimes they didn't commit. Likewise there are people walking the streets who have been aquitted or found not guilty because there wasn't enough evidence to reach the beyond a shadow of doubt standard. Remember a "not guilty" verdict does not mean innocent.

 

[Principal Skinr]

What about the detective who was present when the boy said his dad told him to lie? He gets off because it was not his responsibility? I'm not comfortable with that. He had a responsibility to do something about that, such as recommend no charges or alert superiors that something was afoul.

Also, how does this guy get held 3 years with no bond? Murderers usually have a bond set, even if it is really, really high. (Or, did I misread that?)

In my business, you'd laugh, at first, at how many parents tell me their 12 to 15 year old child never lies, or ..."has never lied to me, ever!" After a few seconds of laughing, you'd realize how sad it really is. I've had parents tell me that, not realizing their child already admitted to me that he or she lied. There are wear spots on the cloth of my office chairs from the squirming that occurs when it is revealed to them. Then again, some say, "Well, that's the first time." Yep, I've heard that several times. Wow.

 

[Principal Skinr]

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I do know enough to say that sometimes there are circumstances which are suppressed and can't be brought up during a trial. Having enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of doubt is a pretty high standard. Sometimes that evidence can be very hard to prove but doesn't change the fact it happened. There are people who have served or are serving time for crimes they didn't commit. Likewise there are people walking the streets who have been aquitted or found not guilty because there wasn't enough evidence to reach the beyond a shadow of doubt standard. Remember a "not guilty" verdict does not mean innocent.

True, but there are also innocent people walking the streets who were found not guilty, but their lives were ruined and they were left bankrupt. There's no perfect system, but with child molestation accusations, there can be a real mob mentality. I completely understand it, because it involves children, but it can have dire consequences, too.

 

[Fargo]

What about the detective who was present when the boy said his dad told him to lie? He gets off because it was not his responsibility? I'm not comfortable with that. He had a responsibility to do something about that, such as recommend no charges or alert superiors that something was afoul.

Also, how does this guy get held 3 years with no bond? Murderers usually have a bond set, even if it is really, really high. (Or, did I misread that?)

In my business, you'd laugh, at first, at how many parents tell me their 12 to 15 year old child never lies, or ..."has never lied to me, ever!" After a few seconds of laughing, you'd realize how sad it really is. I've had parents tell me that, not realizing their child already admitted to me that he or she lied. There are wear spots on the cloth of my office chairs from the squirming that occurs when it is revealed to them. Then again, some say, "Well, that's the first time." Yep, I've heard that several times. Wow.

The obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence usually falls on the prosecutor. As long as the detective made the prosecutor aware, that would be normally how it gets turned over. From what I read, the recanting happened about a week before trial.

The no-bond is probably because one of the offenses was alleged to have occurred while out on bond or because he got caught planning to flee. In Indiana, you have a right to bond on everything except murder where the evidence is strong. However, you can forfeit that right by trying to flee, witness tampering or committing new offenses while out.

 

[2A_Tom]

I have been called to jury duty TOOOO many times. I've Sat on 4 trials. Seated 6 tines. Beged out once due to financial needs. The last time was a child molestation case that the defense made clear was a he said/she said case and we would have to determine who was lying. I basically refused ti sit on the jury Tha judge was very displeased I was afraid I would be held in contempt.

 

[HoughMade]

I have been called to jury duty TOOOO many times. I've Sat on 4 trials. Seated 6 tines. Beged out once due to financial needs. The last time was a child molestation case that the defense made clear was a he said/she said case and we would have to determine who was lying. I basically refused ti sit on the jury Tha judge was very displeased I was afraid I would be held in contempt.

Sounds like you've spent almost as much time in jury trials as i have....almost.