Judge Removes Death Penalty Option in Murder Case Because of Law Enforcement Cheating

[PainIsLIfe]

A judge just has written one of the strongest condemnation of legal corruiption that I have ever read. Basically a mass murderer has been on trial for several years. Over the course of the trial the government refused to cooperate with the court due to some of there evidence gathering techniues coming from illegal tacticss. So the judge has taken the death penalty off of the table.


this is the opinon
https://www.scribd.com/document/356649563/Superior-Court-Ruling-August-18-2017

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/orange...urder-case-because-of-police-cheating-8350677

I don't get it... article said he pled guilty so what was there to keep fro the defense

 

[Rozko]

I don't get it... article said he pled guilty so what was there to keep fro the defense

Even with a guilty plea the prosecution needs to have evidence that links him to it in some fashion or the person has to confess aspects of the case that no one else would know.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

The judge didn't blow anything. Direct all your frustration towards the guilty parties - the ones that hold the law in contempt while charged with the duty to uphold it. I get defense lawyers being dodgy - it's their job to get their client off no matter what (within some parameters). The prosecutor's job is to see justice done.

This DA should be charged with contempt or even conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, serve 12 months and never practice law again.

The guilty parties aren't being punished. The prosecutor should be jailed. That would be just.

 

[Quipling]

I don't get it... article said he pled guilty so what was there to keep fro the defense

He pleaded guilty after some incriminating statements came out. What prosecution had been hiding was the way they had obtained those statements, which turned out to be in violation of his rights. (Fifth Amendment right to remain silent can be violated if someone is continiously questioned while in custody after asserting their Miranda rights. Setting up undercover agents in a jail can qualify, especially the complicated scheme they used). And they apparently spent a huge amount of effort concealing that from the court and from defense. Because there was still enough untainted evidence to convict, he can't withdraw the plea, but the amount of prosecutorial misconduct makes the death penalty nonviable. That stuff is ammunition for appeals and such. Also, I'll bet a dollar that they had previously been relying on the tainted evidence for sentencing.

how is the DP being taken off, and not the charges dropped?

doesn't 'fruit from the poisonous tree' prevent DA's from using evidence obtained illegally?

or was there other, legally obtained evidence that can go towards motive, means, opportunity and the 'nail in the coffin' type stuff was only forbidden?

See above,a bit: conviction and sentenced are handled differently. A guilty plea sticks if there is plenty of untainted evidence, but sentencing looks at everything.

Also, death penalty cases look at this sort of misconduct much more closely than other criminal cases, for a variety of reasons. To put it another way: this sort of shitty behavior gives him a better shot on appeal if he's facing the death penalty than if he's not. By refusing to apply the death penalty, this issue is anticipated and sidestepped.

Still though, wouldn't evidence gathered in a shady way nullify his plea anyways? Isn't he pleading guilty based on the case they have against him? If not, I don't get why the judge would go out of his way to spare the life of a confessed mass murderer, based on internal fuck ups, if in fact the guy is guilty.

Seems like something that should be handled separately by a review board. I don't see the point of punishing the detectives by rewarding the confessed killer, and in turn punishing the victims' families who may feel like he deserves death.

See above. One thing to consider is that sentencing and conviction are different stages, and some evidence that wouldn't change the outcome at conviction if excluded would make the difference at sentencing. One is a binary choice: he did it or he didn't, and the other is a more fluid determination, so more sensitive to context, etc.