PDA

View Full Version : Should federal court judges allow the execution of a factually innocent defendant?



Peter1469
09-19-2014, 06:09 PM
Should federal court judges allow the execution of a factually innocent defendant? (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_kopf_i_would_uphold_the_death_penalty_for_an _innocent_man_rather_than/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email)

This is a hypothetical debate started by a sitting judge on a legal blog.


Writing at Hercules and the Umpire (http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2014/09/10/the-death-penalty-and-the-matter-of-factual-innocence/), U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf says he accepted the risk of condemning an innocent to die when he became a federal judge in 1992. “I will have to live with my knowing choice if such a horror comes to pass,” the Nebraska judge writes. “I will have no one to blame but myself.”


Kopf says he has never had a death penalty case where he believed a defendant was factually innocent and he doesn’t know what he would do if confronted with such a case. “However, I do know this: I would move heaven and earth to stop the execution, but I would not play games with the law to do so,” Kopf says.



***

From the comment section of the article:


Just more proof that many Judges don't understand their role in the JUSTICE system. It's not a game. Heaven and earth should be move ed to avoid an innocent person be punished at any level of the system. There is no defense that can be made for those comments

The Xl
09-19-2014, 06:10 PM
Obviously not, and the person in question should be immediately released.

Matty
09-19-2014, 06:11 PM
If he has factual evidence of innocence he needs to declare the " case dismissed" doesn't he?

Peter1469
09-19-2014, 06:26 PM
If he has factual evidence of innocence he needs to declare the " case dismissed" doesn't he?

From the OP:


He goes on to elaborate on three situations in which he would probably uphold the death penalty for a petitioner who is factually innocent of murder but has no federal legal remedy available to stop the execution.

The first: When precedent compels such a result. “For example,” he says, “should the Supreme Court hold that factual innocence is not cognizable as a ‘stand alone,’ federal claim, I would follow that precedent.”

The second: When he knows the petitioner could resort to a fair and speedy pardon process before the execution.
The third: When the petitioner “sat on his rights” and contributed to the absence of a legal remedy to address factual innocence.


Seems to be narrow circumstances.

PolWatch
09-19-2014, 06:38 PM
frightening thoughts....I knew that Lady Justice was supposed to be blind, but I didn't know the judges were too....

Gunny
09-19-2014, 07:41 PM
"Judge Kopf: I would uphold the death penalty for an innocent man rather than play games with the law".
Stupid.

Peter1469
09-19-2014, 07:53 PM
"Judge Kopf: I would uphold the death penalty for an innocent man rather than play games with the law".


Stupid.

I agree. I will take substance over form any day of the week.

Redrose
09-19-2014, 08:05 PM
How would a "factually innocent" person be sentenced to death? I cannot think of any scenario where that would happen.

In our court in FL. a murder trial, the jury came back with guilty as charged Murder one. My judge, myself, the bailiff who was a Deputy, the defense of course, all believed he was not guilty after hearing the evidence, circumstantial, no DNA then. The judge allowed the verdict to stand, sentenced the defendant and allowed the appeal to go forward. He lost on appeal. Ten years later, in a Defense motion, DNA was used on the evidence, he was proved GUILTY. We all got it wrong. The jury got it right.

Peter1469
09-19-2014, 08:12 PM
How would a "factually innocent" person be sentenced to death? I cannot think of any scenario where that would happen.

In our court in FL. a murder trial, the jury came back with guilty as charged Murder one. My judge, myself, the bailiff who was a Deputy, the defense of course, all believed he was not guilty after hearing the evidence, circumstantial, no DNA then. The judge allowed the verdict to stand, sentenced the defendant and allowed the appeal to go forward. He lost on appeal. Ten years later, in a Defense motion, DNA was used on the evidence, he was proved GUILTY. We all got it wrong. The jury got it right.

The OP gave some examples. Crazy people admit to murder all the time and never contest it.

Redrose
09-19-2014, 09:44 PM
The OP gave some examples. Crazy people admit to murder all the time and never contest it.


We had a famous serial killer in our county in 1993. I won't say the name. There was a book about him though called "The Granny Killer". He raped old ladies 80+ yoa then killed them and burned the house down with the body surrounded with rubbing alcohol in an attempt to destroy all evidence. When caught he admitted everything, but we still had to have a trial. His confession was not enough because they were seeking death. The penalty phase gave him death. He looked so calm and just shrugged his shoulders when sentenced. He was killed 6 weeks later in prison by an inmate who loved his granny.

CreepyOldDude
09-23-2014, 01:59 PM
How would a "factually innocent" person be sentenced to death? I cannot think of any scenario where that would happen.

In our court in FL. a murder trial, the jury came back with guilty as charged Murder one. My judge, myself, the bailiff who was a Deputy, the defense of course, all believed he was not guilty after hearing the evidence, circumstantial, no DNA then. The judge allowed the verdict to stand, sentenced the defendant and allowed the appeal to go forward. He lost on appeal. Ten years later, in a Defense motion, DNA was used on the evidence, he was proved GUILTY. We all got it wrong. The jury got it right.

Happened to Delbert Tibbs, Randall Dale Adams, Robert Charles Cruz, Joseph Burrows, Gary Gauger, Shareef Cousin. The list goes on.

CreepyOldDude
09-23-2014, 02:01 PM
Should federal court judges allow the execution of a factually innocent defendant? (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_kopf_i_would_uphold_the_death_penalty_for_an _innocent_man_rather_than/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email)

This is a hypothetical debate started by a sitting judge on a legal blog.


What gets me is, this is a trial judge. If he's convinced the defendant is, indeed, innocent, he can simply ignore the jury verdict, and enter a directed verdict. No games played with the law.

Private Pickle
09-23-2014, 02:03 PM
From the OP:


Seems to be narrow circumstances.


The third: When the petitioner “sat on his rights” and contributed to the absence of a legal remedy to address factual innocence

So if the guy gets a shitty lawyer he deserves to die even if he is innocent?

What a knob...

nic34
09-23-2014, 02:08 PM
Screw the narrow circumstances. Factually innocent is factually innocent.

nic34
09-23-2014, 02:09 PM
So if the guy gets a shitty lawyer he deserves to die even if he is innocent?

What a knob...

I was going to say"nozzle" but knob will do.....:wink:

Common Sense
09-23-2014, 02:55 PM
Another reason to get rid of the death penalty.

Redrose
09-23-2014, 03:05 PM
What gets me is, this is a trial judge. If he's convinced the defendant is, indeed, innocent, he can simply ignore the jury verdict, and enter a directed verdict. No games played with the law.

That is very true and I asked my judge why he didn't just overrule the jury. He said is it not a good move for a judge to do, a 12 person jury verdict holds a lot of weight. Judges have report cards and they don't like risking a black mark on their record, so he passed the buck to the appeals process. In our case, we all got it wrong. He was guilty. I would have put money on it that he was innocent. Go figure.

Redrose
09-23-2014, 03:12 PM
Another reason to get rid of the death penalty.


Some murderers are so bad, death is warranted. I feel it should be used only in the rarest cases. Not all murders qualify for that penalty, only the worst of the worst. I feel all death sentences must have DNA evidence to erase all doubt. Death sentences have years of appeals which helps to uncover any issues.
I feel this appeals period is much too long though. We have a murderer in Fl still on death row from a 1978 murder. That's just stupid.

Common Sense
09-23-2014, 03:15 PM
Some murderers are so bad, death is warranted. I feel it should be used only in the rarest cases. Not all murders qualify for that penalty, only the worst of the worst. I feel all death sentences must have DNA evidence to erase all doubt. Death sentences have years of appeals which helps to uncover any issues.
I feel this appeals period is much too long though. We have a murderer in Fl still on death row from a 1978 murder. That's just stupid.

If it is going to happen, you're right, there should be solid DNA evidence. In the end it costs the taxpayers more.

But the reality is, it's not a deterrent and the US is the last western country to use it.

Redrose
09-23-2014, 03:43 PM
Granted, it may not be a deterrent, criminals typically don't think past the moment, but it does prevent them from reoffending. There have been cases where death was commuted to life and then the life sentence was reduced to time served due to prison over crowding. That's BS. There have been murders that occurred committed by murderers who were sentenced to die, ending up released. Those victims never should have happened. The Gaceys, Bundys, Specks, Mansons, Dahmers, and the like should be executed. They are predators and will never be rehabilitated. Keeping them in prison for life does not guarantee keeping them off the streets. Somewhere down the road, some nitwit judge will release them because of over crowding. Execution saves all of us that nightmare, especially the victims family and witnesses.

CreepyOldDude
09-23-2014, 03:45 PM
That is very true and I asked my judge why he didn't just overrule the jury. He said is it not a good move for a judge to do, a 12 person jury verdict holds a lot of weight. Judges have report cards and they don't like risking a black mark on their record, so he passed the buck to the appeals process. In our case, we all got it wrong. He was guilty. I would have put money on it that he was innocent. Go figure.

I guess I can understand why a judge wouldn't want to look bad, especially in state or local court. After all, they often don't have lifetime terms. But, if I had a job for life (as federal district judges do), I don't think I'd be worrying about my report card.

As for the case you mention, I have to wonder if the defendant was a psychopath or sociopath. They tend to be very manipulative.

PolWatch
09-23-2014, 03:47 PM
'Judges have report cards and they don't like risking a black mark on their record'

there goes one of my last remaining illusions! I thought judges actually CARED about justice. Now, I find they are just punching the time clock toward retirement and could really care less....oh well.

Redrose
09-23-2014, 03:51 PM
I guess I can understand why a judge wouldn't want to look bad, especially in state or local court. After all, they often don't have lifetime terms. But, if I had a job for life (as federal district judges do), I don't think I'd be worrying about my report card.

As for the case you mention, I have to wonder if the defendant was a psychopath or sociopath. They tend to be very manipulative.


He was. Very smooth, very sincere, he took the stand, that's very unusual. Plus he was handsome. We in court don't usually fall for that, but all considered, his defense seemed very logical and created more than enough reasonable doubt. He fooled us bigtime. DNA is wonderful. The defense motion backfired on them.

CreepyOldDude
09-23-2014, 03:53 PM
If it is going to happen, you're right, there should be solid DNA evidence. In the end it costs the taxpayers more.

But the reality is, it's not a deterrent and the US is the last western country to use it.

The problem with a DNA match is, if it's blood or saliva evidence, it can be faked. Back in 2009, Israeli scientists showed how they can fake DNA results, using any biologic sample available from the person they want to "frame". And, if they have access to someone's DNA profile, they can create the DNA in the lab, without needing anything from the "framee".

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html)

CreepyOldDude
09-23-2014, 03:56 PM
He was. Very smooth, very sincere, he took the stand, that's very unusual. Plus he was handsome. We in court don't usually fall for that, but all considered, his defense seemed very logical and created more than enough reasonable doubt. He fooled us bigtime. DNA is wonderful. The defense motion backfired on them.

Actually, it seems strange that they'd ask to have the DNA tested, if he was guilty. I mean, it's fairly obviously going to point to him.

Redrose
09-23-2014, 03:58 PM
[QUOTE=PolWatch;774251]'Judges have report cards and they don't like risking a black mark on their record'

there goes one of my last remaining illusions! I thought judges actually CARED about justice. Now, I find they are just punching the time clock toward retirement and could really care less....oh well.[/QUOT





oh yeah, judges are just promoted lawyers. One circuit judge doing divorces in chambers order child support on the husband of $1600 per month. The man only took home $1200 per month. The attorney tried to speak up, but this judge had a two minute chess time clock on his desk and hit the bell, said hearing over.

When they left I called the error to his attention, he blew it off and said, "his attorney can appeal the order". That sucks, it costs money to appeal, that guy had no money. Some judges are jerks.

Redrose
09-23-2014, 04:11 PM
Actually, it seems strange that they'd ask to have the DNA tested, if he was guilty. I mean, it's fairly obviously going to point to him.

The defense attorney was trying everything to get him free. She just assumed the DNA would be what she needed to prove his innocence. Major fail. We all thought the jury got it wrong.

Bob
09-23-2014, 04:28 PM
frightening thoughts....I knew that Lady Justice was supposed to be blind, but I didn't know the judges were too....

During my training to become a "judge" over fellow real estate agents, accused normally by either a consumer or fellow agent, we were taught about the legal system and how it works.

The trial is where the case facts come up.
Appeals are for process. Was a legal error made during the trial.

I had thought the following appeals judges up the line looked at the facts of the case.

Peter can correct me but doubt he will.

Our rulings could be appealed to our board of directors but not on the facts of the case, just the process of justice.

Peter1469
09-23-2014, 06:26 PM
What gets me is, this is a trial judge. If he's convinced the defendant is, indeed, innocent, he can simply ignore the jury verdict, and enter a directed verdict. No games played with the law.

My impression was his acting as a federal court judge in a habeas petition after a state system has run its course.