Recent Posts

  Loraine,Ohio:
     On June 24,2009,Nancy Smith and Joseph Allen were acquitted of alleged massive child abuse .Ms.Smith,the mother of four,
had been doing thirty  years  for seemingly non-existent crimes committed in 1992-1993.
   Joseph Allen,her co-defendant,was sentenced to five consecutive life terms.A longer streach than Wayne Williams  is doing in Atlanta. In a particularly strange defense,the two defendants denied ever having seen each other before meeting in the court room.
   Frankly,the case looked hopeless.Until local Judge James Bruge discovered last February that there had been an irregularity in the sentencing.He immediately called her back for re-sentencing.By April he had ordered Allen released on bail.On June 24,to everyone's astonishment,without any external pressure he completely exonerated both the absollutely helpless and destitute defendants..
   This failled to attract any national attention  whatsoever except for one article, here:
       http://www.crimemagazine.com/shameoflorain.htm
    Thiis verdict,however,leaves only three(to my knowledge) SA defendants still in prison.I will get back to these cases next week.
               

  From SG:
    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00739/46882/112/

This supplemental memorandum is submitted on behalf of the defendant Michael B. Nifong. On November 4, 2009 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Pottawattomie County, Iowa v.McGhee, No. 08-1065. Certiorari had been granted on this issue:

"Whether a prosecutor is subject to personal liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for a wrongful conviction and incarceration where the prosecutor allegedly procured false testimony during the criminal investigation and then introduced that same testimony against the criminal defendant at trial to obtain a conviction."

A number of amicus briefs were filed in support of the Iowa prosecutors, the petitioners, including those by the United States, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, and the National District Attorneys Association. Attached and incorporated herein is a copy of the amicus brief filed July 20, 2009 by Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina, and the chief law enforcement officers of 26 other states and the District of Columbia, in support of the Iowa prosecutors/petitioners, i.e. in support of a position of absolute immunity for them. We suggest that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Iowa prosecutors/petitioners on the immunity case, such a ruling would likely apply to the defendant Michael B. Nifong in this case.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James B. Craven III
James B. Craven III
Attorney for Michael B. Nifong NCSB 997

    I know I am naive and illiterate, but isn't this quite a slippery slope, are they saying there is a difference between personal liability and criminal liability?

If a prosecutor procures false testimony then presents it at trial is suborning perjury which is obstruction of justice which is a felony.

So they are determining if an innocent person can have their freedom taken from them and their life ruined and their families devastated by a prosecutor who committed a felony to achieve such a hideous outcome and if that felon (prosecutor) is liable for ruining that persons and their families life?

The U. S. Constitution guarantees a fair trail, aren't these people attempting to take this right away?
"...in support of a position of absolute immunity for them."

Absolute immunity for presenting false evidence...my goodness where would that end, that means NO evidence necessary...
Lord sakes, absolute immunity for violating your Constitutional right to a fair trail... absolute immunity from presenting, false and fabricated evidence to prosecute and convict innocent people...

and we critize other countries for violating human rights... why are we so blind to our own rights being denied while seeing others...
SC:
   Eloquently put,Steve.One of your very best.

   This is an old case(2007) recently upheld on appeal(August) by the 1st Federal Circuit and has been covered over at the main board nevertheless Judge Gertner's decision is especially worth reading in the light of the current Pottawatomie case.
   The FBI intentionally witheld evidence of perjury from Massachusetts prosecutors and four men served twenty-five to thirty years for murder.Judge Gertner fined the FBI over 100,000,000 dollars.
   But suppose the FBI had done its duty and the Massachusetts DA thereafter chose to sit on the evidence ,he could still walk oout free under the iinterpretation of the law of prosecutorial immunity being argued in the Pottawatomie case.The defendants would have no one left to sue for redress,except,may be, the perjurors-who ,naturally, don't have much money.

   ts Jul 26, 2007 6:25 pm US/Eastern Families Get $101 Million In Wrongful Conviction
  
A federal judge in Boston has ordered the government to pay more than $101 million to the families of four Massachusetts men wrongly convicted of murder.

Joseph Salvati , Peter Limone and the families of the two other men who died in prison after being convicted in a 1965 slaying had sued the federal government for malicious prosecution.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner said it took 30 years to uncover the injustice, and that (quote) "the government's position is, in a word, absurd."

In a scathing 220-page ruling, Gertner said she was shocked by the FBI's behavior in the case.

"The state investigation was a charade… Information they provided was false and misleading. Critical information was withheld and they knew it," she said.

"The FBI's misconduct was clearly the sole cause of this conviction."

Their lawsuit accused the FBI of withholding evidence that could have cleared them.

During a lengthy civil trial, lawyers for the men argued that Boston FBI agents knew Joseph "The Animal" Barboza -- a mob hitman -- lied when he named the four men as Edward "Teddy" Deegan's killers. They said Barboza wanted to protect a fellow FBI informant, Vincent "Jimmy" Flemmi, who was involved in Deegan's murder.

The men were "acceptable collateral damage" in the FBI's priority at the time -- taking down the Mafia through the use of criminal informants, their lawyers said.

The government argued that federal authorities had no duty to share information with state officials who prosecuted Limone, Salvati, Tameleo and Greco. Federal authorities cannot be held responsible for the results of a state prosecution, a Justice Department lawyer argued.

Judge Gertner admonished the Justice Department in her ruling Thursday.

"The FBI knew his (Barboza's) testimony was false, but let perjury happen anyway," Gertner said.

"The FBI said the benefit outweighed the cost. To put it in current terms, these four men were collateral damage."

"Now is the time to say, without equivocation, this cost to these four men is not remotely acceptable."
snip

  

   By CURT ANDERSON, AP Legal Affairs Writer Curt Anderson, Ap Legal Affairs Writer – 5 mins ago
MIAMI – The ringleader of a group described by prosecutors as plotting terror attacks on Chicago's Sears Tower and FBI offices in hopes of sparking an anti-government insurrection was sentenced Friday to 13 1/2 years in prison by a federal judge.

Narseal Batiste, 35, dabbed at his eyes with a tissue when U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard wondered in court how he was transformed from a hardworking family man struggling to build an inner-city construction business to the unquestioned leader of a quasi-religious, paramilitary group seeking support from al-Qaida for terrorism.

snip

Batiste, who faced a maximum of 70 years in prison, was convicted in May of conspiracy to provide material support to al-Qaida, plotting to blow up buildings and conspiracy to wage war against the U.S. Four other men described as Batiste's soldiers were also convicted and sentenced to between six and 10 years behind bars.

The sentencing Friday marked the culmination of a case that began with an FBI raid in June 2006 on the group's warehouse, known as the "Embassy," in Miami's impoverished Liberty City neighborhood. Top U.S. officials acknowledged at the time that the Sears Tower and FBI plots never got past the discussion stage and the group never acquired the means to carry out such audacious attacks.

The case was viewed as a prime example of the post-9/11 law enforcement strategy of stopping terror plots in the earliest possible stages, before proverbial fuse is lit.

"We shouldn't have to wait for people to be harmed to punish these people for their desire to inflict harm," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Arango.

But critics, including Batiste attorney Ana M. Jhones, called it an overblown case of FBI entrapment.

"No one in the United States was ever in any danger. There were absolutely no steps taken to wage war," she said.

snip

At the sentencing hearing, Batiste apologized to his family and the young men who became his followers, and blamed his "arrogance and pride" for leading him down the wrong path.

"I wanted respect. I wanted to be this person that I really wasn't," he said. "I've never been a violent person."

snip

Batiste has been jailed since his June 2006 arrest, giving him roughly 10 more years to serve under Friday's sentence. After that, he will remain on probation for 35 years.

   Just in--now,Friday,November 20th.
      .From Australia World News:
   Forensic Services Department has completed a DNA database audit 
 
 
Victoria Police has today announced that its Forensic Services Department has completed a DNA database audit which involved the review of 6,000 cases.

The review was initiated in July after Victoria Police withdrew the murder charges placed against Russell John Gesah due to doubt being raised as to the validity of the DNA evidence in this case.

 

Of the 6,000 cases reviewed, Victoria Police believes there may have been one possible contamination of biological DNA between a theft from motor vehicle and a cultivate cannabis case. An offender had been identified however no charges had been laid.


Whilst it cannot be proven that contamination did occur, it is not possible to conclusively exclude this as a possibility as was able to be done for all other cases. 

New more stringent measures recently put in place within the Forensics Services Department since these offences occurred, would now mean that police officers carrying out the investigation would be informed of the issue prior to any action being taken. 


Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon said that although DNA was an incredibly powerful tool there is always potential for contamination.

“DNA is incredibly sensitive and it has always been known that there is the potential for contamination to occur as part of the exhibit collection and testing processes,” Ms Nixon said.

“There are numerous procedures in place at the laboratory to minimise the potential for contamination and to detect it if it does occur. These checks are standard procedure.” 


Ms Nixon said Victoria Police’s Forensic Services Department has worked tirelessly to ensure the impact on all other forensic work was kept to a minimum.
snip
 
   SC:
   This is encouraging in 6000 cases the lab made only one mistake!Australia  really is in the best of scientific hands.But.... if they really are that good at what they do,doesn't that lend credence to the beleaguered scientists' claims that they didn't make a mistakke at all,that the cops really framed the evidence against Gisah from the start?
   But then.... what happened to the other thousand missing DNA cases under examination? Do they really exist? If not why wasn't there any correction over the many months in which the 7000 DnA cases were repeatedly referenced oall over the globe? But,if it turns oout a thousand cases were allowed to go missing,there is no telling the number oof errors they may contain.
   Just joking. Maybe.
     
     

       This is going to be a very close one.Justice Alito was seven years a federal prosecutor and Sotomayer comes from five years as a New York City DA. They may well  be more worried about prosecutors  being entrapped by defendants than about defendants  being framed by prosecutors.After all the annals of law  are filled with horrific examples of prosecutors who were railroaded into   twenty-five year sentences  by fiendish defendants .
   And consider this:
     "I'm worried about what Justice Alito brought up," chimed in Justice Stephen Breyer. "All things being equal, I think it's probably a good thing to get prosecutors involved in the questioning process" early. "That has kind of a check on police."
   Everybody at Justice4Nifong knows that Nifong only got intto the Duke case to curb the excesses of the police force. And look what's happened to him.
  Yes, it is going to be very close.Fortunately,from his questions, it seems most  likely that Justice Scalia will cross over and vote with his recently found friend,Justice Stevens for the plaintiffs.Otherwise absolutelly all of us could be in a loot of trouble for a long time into the future.As if innocent weren't already in enough trouble under the current interpretation  os  prosecutorial immunity laws.
   These guys are not even denying that they did it.They are saying with Shakespeare's Goneril."The laws are mine,not thine,who can arraign me for it."
   Still Goneril ended up a suicide. 
   

[“we forfeit that trust and have no right to enjoy the privilege of self-regulation or the confidence and respect of the public.”9"]

when Nifong with held evidence he "obstructed justise, if, as in my case when the prosecutor altered the taped sworn testimony of the pathologist he obstructed justice, if a judge lies and improperly disallows a jury to "validate their verdict" has he not obstructed of justce?

Why should the very people who are to uphold our laws be not held accountable when they themselves violate them? How can our legal system be set upon the tenet of availability of fair and just treatment in the courts if the courts deny that very availibility?

What good are all those Rules of Professional Conduct, if they merely look the other way when their brothern violate those Rules?

"Self regulation is no myth. It is at the core of a viable legal profession. The duty to report ethical misconduct rests within the nucleus of that core, often hidden from view but as real as are the consequences should we fail; for if we do, “we forfeit that trust and have no right to enjoy the privilege of self-regulation or the confidence and respect of the public.”9"

sorry about the typo's and forgot to post this link from where those Rules come from
From the Indiana / American Bar Association Professional Rules of Conduct
 
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mrpc_toc.html

"Model Rule 8.3(a)
Reporting Professional Misconduct

“Imposes a mandatory reporting obligation on every lawyer with respect to other lawyers’ violations of the professional rules. Probably no other professional requirement is as widely ignored by lawyers subject to it.”1

“Moreover, the lawyer’s duty to report professional misconduct is the foundation for the claim that we can be trusted to regulate ourselves as a profession. If we fail in our duty, we forfeit that trust and have no right to enjoy the privilege of self regulation or the confidence and respect of the public.”2"

"“A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority."

why should a prosecutor , judge or any officer of the court, that knowingly violates anothers right to a fair trial be exempt from prosecution or civil suit

Rule 3.4. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
A lawyer shall not:
(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause
(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.

"There is no constitutional right not to be framed.", yes there is, I beleive it's called "obstruction of justice" which if you remember is why Nixon was forced to resign.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1623/Obstruction-Justice.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

as long as these cases go "unnoticed" and unreported, we the people are in danger of losing more and more of legaal rights everyday, yesterday it was the "Duke bouys", today it is me, tomorrow it could be YOU

   "There is no constitutional right not to be framed."
      These words have struck a responsive cord in what passes for Mike Nifong's heart.Citing the above pleadings,Nifong has filed a supplemental brief against the players requesting the Court to throw out the Duke suit if the crooked prosecutors win in the Supreme Court.  This sounds perilously close to admitting that he pulled all the dirt whichwe all have been saying that he did.
           
  http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00739/46882/112/

This supplemental memorandum is submitted on behalf of the defendant Michael B. Nifong. On November 4, 2009 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Pottawattomie County, Iowa v.McGhee, No. 08-1065. Certiorari had been granted on this issue:

"Whether a prosecutor is subject to personal liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for a wrongful conviction and incarceration where the prosecutor allegedly procured false testimony during the criminal investigation and then introduced that same testimony against the criminal defendant at trial to obtain a conviction."

A number of amicus briefs were filed in support of the Iowa prosecutors, the petitioners, including those by the United States, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, and the National District Attorneys Association. Attached and incorporated herein is a copy of the amicus brief filed July 20, 2009 by Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina, and the chief law enforcement officers of 26 other states and the District of Columbia, in support of the Iowa prosecutors/petitioners, i.e. in support of a position of absolute immunity for them. We suggest that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Iowa prosecutors/petitioners on the immunity case, such a ruling would likely apply to the defendant Michael B. Nifong in this case.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James B. Craven III
James B. Craven III
Attorney for Michael B. Nifong NCSB 997