Something Feral posted this story on Elusive Wapiti's blog. It is a good example of why I have basically stopped criticizing the police except on matters of unabashed stupidity, in favor of focusing on bring attention to cases of prosecutorial malfeasance:
I don't know if it is even possible to reform a system where the judges and prosecutors behave like this. Both the judge and the prosecutor have to face the fact that not only is there no forensic evidence of rape, there is evidence against it. The alleged rape victim, who claims to have had intercourse, is still a virgin! On top of that, a neighbor saw the "victim" and the "perpetrator" carrying on and having a good time after the alleged incident.
The only way to reform the system in cases like this would be to create a system to short-circuit the case. The defense should have a way of addressing the jury and pointing out that the evidence flat out does prove the guilty of their client, and the jury should be empowered to stop the trial under such circumstances. The very reason that cases like this demand that the jury be the supreme legal body in the room in the room, as the legislature is ultimately supreme over the executive's veto, is that the judge, like the prosecutor, has refused to handle this case properly in light of the dearth of evidence against the defendant.
According to an interview I had on September 16 with John Edison's aunt, Alice Gaskins, the 12-year-old's medical exam, which was conducted only hours after this alleged rape took place, revealed no evidence that a physical assault had occurred, much less a violent rape. In fact, the girl's hymen apparently was still intact at the time of her examination. (Medical records are sealed and therefore not available for public consumption. However, they can be requested and obtained by the family of the accused.)The prosecutor in this case is not entirely a bad apple. He does seem to have the capacity to recognize problems with the system and call them out for what they are. However, like a lot of prosecutors, he seems to be driven more by outside factors than a sense of duty to the spirit of justice. What makes this case interesting to me is that when he was 18, it appears that the prosecutor participated in a gang rape of a 15 year old girl, which adds the element of a man trying to gain redemption for himself.
Indeed, the only "evidence" provided by the state during preliminary proceedings was the statement by the alleged victim that she had been raped. St. Mary's County sheriff's deputy James Fontana described for the court the 12-year-old's account of events, and when McDevitt asked him if he was aware of any other witness accounts or scientific evidence against Edison, Fontana said he was not.
I don't know if it is even possible to reform a system where the judges and prosecutors behave like this. Both the judge and the prosecutor have to face the fact that not only is there no forensic evidence of rape, there is evidence against it. The alleged rape victim, who claims to have had intercourse, is still a virgin! On top of that, a neighbor saw the "victim" and the "perpetrator" carrying on and having a good time after the alleged incident.
The only way to reform the system in cases like this would be to create a system to short-circuit the case. The defense should have a way of addressing the jury and pointing out that the evidence flat out does prove the guilty of their client, and the jury should be empowered to stop the trial under such circumstances. The very reason that cases like this demand that the jury be the supreme legal body in the room in the room, as the legislature is ultimately supreme over the executive's veto, is that the judge, like the prosecutor, has refused to handle this case properly in light of the dearth of evidence against the defendant.
Reciprocity in sentencing would be a large step forward. There is no doubt here that the allegations are false, and the nature of the evidence points to at the very least a filing of a false report.
I also agree that the jury should (and ultimately does) command supremacy in the courtroom, but in practice it is borderline contempt to make the assertion to the judge. Change will be a long-time-coming here.
Thanks for the link!
It needs to go a little deeper than that. We need to have the government lose its monopoly on the ability to bring charges, and there needs to be a system in place wherein witnesses can be sentenced during a trial, as though it were their own trial, for anything that is illegal. Like in the case of Ryan Frederick, the government informants who turned out to be burglars need to be able to have charges against them raised by the defense, on which the jury can find them guilty and have them sentenced right then and there during the trial by the judge without a trial of their own.
An excellent post Mike. I agree with Feral about reciprocity too. Bringing back the principle that the jury is the supreme law-and-order body in the room, just as the legislature is in government, would go a long way toward curbing excesses like these.
I'd support that. The Ryan Frederick case has several incompetent, malicious and (as you pointed out about the informants) criminal associates, it'd be nice to see them dealt with in the appropriate manner without additional trials.
I think the need for separate trials, in cases like theirs, is just a matter of legalism and self-aggrandizement for the legal profession. If you get on the stand and you admit:
1) I burgled the defendant's home.
2) I burgled them under the direction of the cops.
3) I make no pretense that I'm not guilty of a felony.
I see no reason why you need a formal trial, and why the jury cannot find you guilty, right then and there, of felony breaking and entering. If you were coerced, guess what? That's what the appeals courts would be for.