Disgusting Miscarriage of Justice

[lawrocket 3]

The Ninth Circuit put this out yesterday.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/03/14/07-99001%20web%20-%20corrected.pdf

Anyone who wants an eye-opener, read this.

In short, a woman was convicted and sentenced to death in the murder of her 4 year old son. The only evidence was testimony of a cop that she confessed to him in interrogation. The prosecutor did not disclose that this cop had a rather nasty established history of lying under oath, disregarding right to counsel, and of sexual misconduct.

I'd say that Det. Saldate was merely ahead of his time in just trying to bypass "unnecessary legal obstacles."

A woman has spent the past 20 years under a death sentence for a crime that she probably had nothing to do with.

These are the people protecting us? If you think that this a something that only happens in Arizona, think again.

Here's how the opinion ended:

Quote

Milke is entitled to habeas relief. We therefore REVERSE the decision of the district court and REMAND with instructions to GRANT a conditional writ of habeas corpus setting aside her convictions and sentences. Prior to issuing the writ, the district court shall order the state to provide Milke’s counsel with Saldate’s police personnel records covering all of his years of service, including records pertaining to any disciplinary or Internal Affairs investigations and records pertaining to performance evaluations. If the state believes that any of the materials it is ordered to provide are not relevant to Brady or Giglio, it may present them to the district court in camera, and the district court shall review them to determine whether they are relevant to Brady or Giglio, as explicated in our opinion.

Defense counsel shall be allowed to see the documents and to argue why each might be Brady or Giglio material. The district court may, in its discretion, enter a protective order requiring all contested documents to be filed under seal and to be designated “For Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” and setting such other conditions as the district court finds necessary and proper, while the district court decides whether the contested materials are relevant to Brady or Giglio.

After the state has turned over these records, it shall provide a statement under oath from a relevant police official certifying that all of the records have been disclosed and none has been omitted, lost or destroyed. If a relevant police official is unable or unwilling to provide such a certification, the district court shall hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether any records have not been produced, and, if so, why. Petitioner’s counsel shall be given a reasonable period of discovery prior to the hearing. This panel retains jurisdiction over any appeal arising from this remand.

Upon production of the certification described above or the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the district court shall order Milke released unless the state notifies the court within 30 days that it intends to retry Milke, and actually commences Milke’s retrial within 90 days.

The clerk of our court shall send copies of this opinion to the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona and to the Assistant United States Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division, for possible investigation into whether Saldate’s conduct, and that of his supervisors and other state and local officials, amounts to a pattern of violating the federally protected rights of Arizona residents.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ryoder 1,397]

Seems the liar has no interest in talking about it: http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/saldate5.shtml#.UUNW6lt4Ykg

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[lawrocket 3]

That the Ninth Circuit referred the case to the US Attorney's office is a good thing

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DiverMike 5]

Makes you wonder how he would have handled being questioned about being suspended for five days for making someone have sex with him to get out of a traffic stop.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[Andy9o8 0]

This is why it's outrageous that the US hasn't joined enlightened countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and Somalia, not just in retaining the death penalty into the 21st Century, but also in putting their condemnees to death speedily, like so many (Americans) on these boards enthusiastically advocate. Now We The Taxpayers will have spent all kinds of serious money on appeals for this nuisance that could have been better spent on drones in Pakistan keeping our children safe in their beds at home.

[CygnusX-1 42]

Ya really. The only thing I got out of the OP's long post (that I didn't read in it's entirety) was:

Quote

A woman has spent the past 20 years under a death sentence

20 years!? Come on, that is just ridiculous.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Ya really. The only thing I got out of the OP's long post (that I didn't read in it's entirety) was:

Quote

A woman has spent the past 20 years under a death sentence

20 years!? Come on, that is just ridiculous.

Just for the record, my previous post was sarcastic.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Ya really. The only thing I got out of the OP's long post (that I didn't read in it's entirety) was:

Quote

A woman has spent the past 20 years under a death sentence

20 years!? Come on, that is just ridiculous.

Is your position the usual Reich Wing Conservative one?
That would be "Anyone convicted of a capital crime should be put to death ASAP!".

The Reich Wingers have 100% faith in the US justice system when it comes to domestic crimes and murders. They have no faith at all in the system when it comes to criminal prosecution of terrorists. Then the system is found to have too many rights granted to the accused, and that simply is unacceptable.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Ya really. The only thing I got out of the OP's long post (that I didn't read in it's entirety) was:

Quote

A woman has spent the past 20 years under a death sentence

20 years!? Come on, that is just ridiculous.

Is your position the usual Reich Wing Conservative one?
That would be "Anyone convicted of a capital crime should be put to death ASAP!".

The Reich Wingers have 100% faith in the US justice system when it comes to domestic crimes and murders. They have no faith at all in the system when it comes to criminal prosecution of terrorists. Then the system is found to have too many rights granted to the accused, and that simply is unacceptable.

Hi Amazon!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The Reich Wingers have 100% faith in the US justice system

Yes. That's why it's the right wing out here filibustering authorization of drone strikes on American soil.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

To go back to the point, the issue in this case is not the death penalty. The issue in this case is the government and its agents taking a broad view of the Constitution as having its limitations. Of the government playing fast and loose with fundamental fairness because it has objectives.

In this case, there's a woman who must be kept out of society because she might kill someone. Who knows? After all, her child was murdered and the government is there to make sure that as many people as possible pay for the deed.

One considers what would be the case now. Just make an allegation that she's got a mental illness and lock her up indefinitely.

What happened to her is nothing short of what has been suggested by many to occur to those with a past or present mental illness. Only they'll call those prisons "hospitals." Just to keep people safe, you know?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

To go back to the point, the issue in this case is not the death penalty.

There has to be only one issue?

That's a pretty limited point of view, isn't it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Just for the record, my previous post was sarcastic.

Ahh, that's nothing. In a a few posts time JR's sockpuppet will turn up to remind us that it was her own lawyer's fault for not finding out that her prosecutors were lying fascist scumbags, and then the real fun begins.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

The case itself is about dirty police, dirty prosecution, dirty government.

My concern is that the conduct is becoming acceptable. This cop considered things like Miranda and the 5th Amendment to be unnecessary legal barriers. We've got a president who considers the right of privacy to be an unnecessary legal barrier. So Milke was in prison for the last 23 years though she committed no crime - the same is being suggested for the mentally ill.

Police willfully ignoring the 4th amendment is becoming acceptable (warrantless wiretaps). Even drone strikes in the US are not being denied as out of the question.

This stuff used to be hidden because it was known to be dirty. Now it seems that fair is foul and foul is fair.

Hover through the fog and the filthy air.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,426]

> This cop considered things like Miranda and the 5th Amendment to be unnecessary
>legal barriers. We've got a president who considers the right of privacy to be an
>unnecessary legal barrier.

You left out Pelosi, Al Gore and the Mainstream Media. Surely this has something to do with them as well!

[lawrocket 3]

No. I have a specific quote from the President about HIPAA (codified right to privacy) constituting an "unnecessary legal barrier." Actually, he used the plural and counted HIPAA as an example.

Miranda? It is a legal barrier. And if you are a cop and want to put someone away then it is an unnecessary legal barrier.

Playing fast and loose with rights is being politically legitimized. I am grateful that the courts are there to check it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,426]

>No. I have a specific quote from the President about HIPAA

I'm sure you can find a quote from Gore about gun control, Pelosi about taxes and the MSM about nearly anything. Why limit the comparisons?

[jakee 1,257]

Ah, ok. So a woman sitting on death row for 20 years has enough of a link to drone strikes for them to be on topic discussion, but has no connection with the death penalty discussion.

Still seems odd to me, but you're the lawyer.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'm sure you can find a quote from Gore about gun control

He's in no position to do anything.

Quote

Pelosi about taxes

She needs cooperation from half of the House.

Quote

MSM about nearly anything

MSM doesn't scare me.

Quote

Why limit the comparisons?

Because the President has power, uses executive orders, and can be fundamentally unchecked for some time. That worries me.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Ah, ok. So a woman sitting on death row for 20 years has enough of a link to drone strikes for them to be on topic discussion, but has no connection with the death penalty discussion.

Still seems odd to me, but you're the lawyer.

I understand your point.

My issue is of abuses of rights by government, be it federal, state or local. Just one rogue cop can destroy a life.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,426]

>Because the President has power, uses executive orders, and can be
>fundamentally unchecked for some time. That worries me.

Good point, although it has nothing to do with your OP. You could start a thread on that!

[lawrocket 3]

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,146]

Google Michael Morton. And Texas still doesn't have right to discovery (there was an editorial in today's paper about it). Brady still applies, and it looks like it was gone around in this case, too

Folks, innocent people go to prison. I'm sure some have been executed. Guilty people get out, too, but the prosecution does have an inherent advantage with all the access to the police, and taxpayers dollars etc.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Any system of holding people accountable for crimes will have the potential for abuse. What is your solution to the problem? Would it be better if the government (i.e. "we") did not ever prosecute anyone for anything, just in case the prosecution is tainted in some way?

I think the notion of "prosecutorial immunity" could use some reconsideration. I don't think it would be good for prosecutors to be penalized when they abide by the rules to prosecute someone who they really believe to be guilty, based on evidence they believe was legally obtained, if it subsequently turns out the defendant was innocent. On the other hand, the lack of consequences for concealing evidence and other sorts of misconduct, coupled with the rewards that come from getting convictions in high profile cases, encourages prosecutors (and sometimes police) to stretch and sometimes break the rules. I'd also include the election of prosecutors and judges in the list of things that encourages abuse of the judicial process.

It seems to me that part of the problem is that the whole legal system revolves around very narrow interpretations of rules, where a path to career success is finding "loopholes" that allow people to circumvent the intent of laws. For example, in the story Wendy cited the prosecutor (now a state judge) was ordered (back in 1987) to turn over all documents to a court review of the case, but he left out several pieces of evidence that indicated that the defendant was factually innocent and pointed to a different suspect. His defense of his actions was that he "interpreted the court order very narrowly", whatever that means. The point is that these cases become a contest in which the lawyers involved battle over who can best twist interpretations of rules to their benefit. If "justice" results from this process, it is merely a happy side effect.

Here's another example of slavish adherence to rules resulting in extreme injustice to an innocent person, this time at the hands of defense lawyers. Two lawyers sat and did nothing as a man they knew to be innocent was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole. The man was imprisoned for 26 years while the guilty party was shielded by the lawyers. The fact that the legal system has no mechanism for preventing such a miscarriage of justice, that it in fact mandates that lawyers permit such things to happen, is strong evidence that the legal system is only tangentially related to any concept of justice.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

Quote

Ah, ok. So a woman sitting on death row for 20 years has enough of a link to drone strikes for them to be on topic discussion, but has no connection with the death penalty discussion.

Still seems odd to me, but you're the lawyer.

Well, even though I am against the death penalty for a lot of different reasons, the application of it in the case of a murder of a child is one of the few places I find it appropriate.
So, I don't see how the application of the death penalty would have been unreasonable in this particular case, had the woman been guilty and had the prosecutors and police actually followed the rules.

I agree with LR that the issue is the way in which the government trampled all over this woman's rights, where the cop decided she was guilty and the prosecutor agreed.
This lack of due process is not too far from the concept of a drone strike on US soil.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo