link

It’s been one stop after another for freed inmate Alan Newton, who was released from prison last week after 22 years in jail for a crime he did not commit.

It didn’t matter that his alibi was tight: Newton had seen a movie with his fiancee and spent the night. Newton was convicted and sentenced to up to 40 years on the charges.

Wonder if we’ll have to wait 22 years to clear the Duke players–wait! They’ve already had their DNA
testing–that means they can be cleared now, right? (sarc/off)

Of course, UNK, that’s a gigantic leap from the 10th rate police work we’ve seen to date.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13890428/from/RS.5/

“Attorneys for the uncharged players want to prevent District Attorney Mike Nifong from gaining access to Duke records of the home addresses of uncharged team members and records of their use of student identity cards. The lawyers argue the information is protected by federal privacy laws. ”

I don’t know if it’s protected by federal privacy laws, but it’s really third-rate police work at this stage in the game and close to trying to frame the usual suspects – the ones with records.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/461187.html

Titled: “Lacrosse Defense Sways Media”

Not many new insights, but in trying to have a “balanced story” the writer does all she can to make the defense evidence look like “defense spin” that’s “playing the world like a violin…”

Lotsa quotes from law professors and media types who are more than pleased to offer lotsa quotes.
Kinda shows their stripes … as folks who don’t want to worry about the potential veracity of emerging information, so long as they get to keep offering lotsa quotes.

“To begin with, this case should never have come to trial. The State has not produced one iota of medical evidence that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place. It has relied instead upon the testimony of two witnesses whose evidence has not only been called into serious question on cross examination, but has been flatly contradicted by the defendant. . .

I have nothing but pity in my heart for the Chief Witness for the State. She is the victim of cruel poverty and ignorance. But, my pity does not extend so far as to her putting a man’s life at stake, which she has done in an effort to get rid of her own guilt. . .

The witnesses for the State, with the exception of the sheriff of Lincoln County, have presented themselves to you gentlemen — to this Court — in the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted. . .

Now I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this man to his family.

In the name of God, do your duty. In the name of God, believe Tom Robinson.”
(kudos to Friends of DU for posting this originally)

See, for instance: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1184007,00.html

It’s interesting to look at old stories like that, and notice things like that they were still reporting the police warrant application’s statement that the medical exam showed signs “consistent with sexual assault, both anally and vaginally” – reporting it basically as a true fact. The story goes on to note that such medical report will be difficult for the press to overcome. Yeah, that’s not exactly how it’s gonna play out, in hindsight.

Hey, an Internet rumor was enough to get Judge Bayly’s knockers into a twist in DC.

Most likely not illegal, but interrogations are done in person, not by email or phone, for a reason.

Wishful thinking, I’m sure. Sometimes people do things that stink, but there’s nothing that can be done law-wise.

So, I suppose that an email saying that someone has confessed would also fall into the same category–unless, by pretending to be another student, they crossed the line. (I don’t know, I’m not an attorney.)

I saw this posted somewhere else — with no link or further discussion — but hadn’t seen anything published that I could recall. And I’ve tried to follow this whole thing pretty closely so I’m not sure where I missed it. Thanks for any help.

One would have to be pretty stupid, legally insane, not to know that robbing a liquor store at gunpoint is illegal.

I would never give anyone a free pass on account of stupidity, but there are a lot of crimes where people are uncertain. Even on this blog, people have incorrectly argued that “they started the fight” is a legal defense. “They started the fight” rarely meets the legal standard of self-defense.

In my opinion, the off duty cop or smart student who knows that you can’t legally assault someone because they started it deserves more punishment than the person who does not.

The Reverend Dr. Bill Lawson compared Lay with civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus Christ, and said his name would eventually be cleared.

“He was taken out of the world right at the right time,” he said. “History has a way of vindicating people who have been wronged.”