At the core of the belief IN the ideals of the United States, has to be the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I think this concept is one of the top 3 reasons why our society is better than other societies in this world. If we lose this ideal, how much better are we than, say, Cuba?
(OK, that's hyperbole).
Innocent until proven guilty? See the Duke lacrosse players and Richard Jewel for details.
But let's consider what happens when a person has been arrested and charged with a crime.
Informants
In a court trial, should a "jail house informant" be taken seriously? Should a jail house informant even be allowed to testify in a trial?
If I were a member of a jury and a "jail house snitch" took the stand and "swore to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth," I would probably laugh out loud on the spot. Personally, I don't think they should be used because I doubt their honesty. But I think this is something that a juror should be, and must be, allowed to determine for himself. I don't think I can believe a person who is getting time taken off of his sentence when he agrees to tell something "his cell mate told" him.
To me, the problem is prosecutors, reaching out to make a case, using informants to build the case. They know the people they are putting on trial are probably not truthful. I just don't understand why prosecutors don't get in trouble for using them if it can be determined that the jail house snitches lied when giving their testimony. Surely, the prosecutors know they are lying.
This brings me to the drug sting case in Tulia, Texas.
Tulia gained notoriety following a drug sting in July 1999 that rounded up 46 people, forty of whom were African Americans. The remaining detainees were white people known to have ties within the black community, and in fact lived in the black part of town. [2] Nearly one in two of Tulia's black males were arrested, about 15% of the town's black population. All charges were based on the word of undercover officer Tom Coleman, a so called "gypsy cop" who made his living travelling through impoverished rural Texas offering to work undercover cheaply for short periods of time for underfunded police departments. Coleman claimed to have made over one hundred drug buys in the small town, essentially an impossible feat for an undercover officer working alone. He never recorded any of the sales, but claimed to have written painstaking notes on his leg under his shorts and upper arm under his shirt sleeve when nobody was looking.
During the roundup, no large sums of money, illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, or illegal weapons were found. The accused drug dealers showed no signs of having any income associated with selling drugs. The drugs Coleman claimed to have bought from the accused did not have the fingerprints of the accused on them or their baggies. No independent witnesses could corrobarate Coleman's claims. In his testimony, Coleman gave inaccurate descriptions of the "dealers" he had allegedly bought cocaine from. One suspect had his charges dropped when he was able to prove he had been at work during the times he had supposedly sold Coleman cocaine. Another produced bank and phone records indicating she was in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma at the time of her alleged crime. Many of the accused, however, seeing the long sentences dealt out by all-white juries in the earliest cases, pled guilty in return for lesser sentences, despite their proclaimed innocence. The remaining defendants were convicted solely on the basis of Coleman's testimony. The state attorney general, John Cornyn, awarded Coleman a prize for being "Lawman of the Year."
Eventually the case became a cause célèbre, and money was raised to legally challenge the cases. Many had already served several years in prison when this process got down to business. By 2004, most of the "Tulia 46" had been freed, and a $6,000,000 collective settlement was reached to avoid further litigation in civil court. Local authorities remain defiant, promising their town will not become a "slot machine" in the face of a new lawsuit stemming from an incident of police brutality during the sweep by a man who was not charged.
What I don't understand is how the authorities, after having two "drug dealers" prove they were not where the "informant" said they were, still felt strong about bringing charges against the other "drug dealers." How does that happen?
Court Appointed vs. Competent
I will never be able to get over the State of Texas defending its right to execute a person convicted of a crime, even though the court appointed lawyer had fallen asleep during the trial. Texas argued that they only had to provide a court appointed attorney, they didn't have to provide a competent attorney. After the shock of the statement set in, I realized I was shocked not because it was the truth, only because Texas was stating it as a defense of their actions.
When the press asked candidate George W. Bush about Texas losing an appellate ruling, Bush said it proves the court system works. Meanwhile, the State of Texas, with Bush still its governor, appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.
But, we all know that if you are of no means, you get what you get. If you are of moderate means, you go into debt to do the best you can do, and if you are well off, you get the best and most likely, get a favorable outcome.
I fully understand that our court system is not infallible because our court system is based on people, who are not infallible. I understand that errors will happen, and I accept that as fact. However, I cannot "just accept" the cases of prosecutors acting against the ideal of a fair judicial process nor can I "just accept" a system that seems to work against the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty."
If faith in our court system is lost, where does this leave our society?
Part II later...
Recent Comments