Serial --Thorough Journalism documenting difficulty of delivering justice

My son, Sean, told me about the Serial Podcast he and Manon had listened to on their trip to Lake Tahoe.  So I started it.  Wow! I found it to be a very interesting, well-produced show.  It is also excellent documentation of how difficult it is to achieve justice. In the podcast Sarah Koenig describes research and analysis that she did over several years into the conviction of Baltimore area high school student Adnan Syed for the murder of an ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee.

The podcast is excellent, and I highly recommend it.  There are lots of other websites that provide additional information: The Daily Dot, Wikipedia, and Serial Wiki.

The murder case and conviction took place 15 years ago, and I don't think I heard anything about it at the time.  Now, this podcast series has rejuvenated interest in the case.  The prosecutor on the case has made a statement, and Huffington Post has had articles about it:

Of course, the podcast was produced as a form of entertainment.  Even though it appears to have been presented in a way that was fair to all sides in the case, it may have twisted or distorted the facts.  I can't be sure.  However, from the information presented in the podcast, it is clear to me:

1. The defense attorney for Adnan may have been "one of the best" --but possibly due to declining health, did not do as good of a job as she should have in this case.
2. The prosecution clearly distorted some of the facts in such a way to make their case stronger, and the defense was ineffective or negligent in not pointing out the problems
3. The prosecution violated some basic rules of courtroom ethics by providing a lawyer to the other prime suspect, Jay.
4. There were many, important, off-the-record negotiations between police and Jay in which it is likely that the police "led" Jay to testify  in such a way that it incriminated Adnan.
5. The Judge was negligent in this case for allowing some of the prosecution shenanigans.
6. The sentence given to Adnan (life plus 30 years) for a murder conviction seems totally out of line, even if it was clear that Adnan had committed the crime.  It seems to me that people convicted of murders that were much more heinous than this one have received less severe sentences.  

It will be interesting to continue to follow what happens in this case.  I hope the DNA tests will be performed and uncover new evidence.  There were those several "outlier" pieces of evidence that seem to confound other theories.  For example if the "serial killer's" DNA is found on Hae, then how would Jay know where Hae's car was located?

I was sorry to see the end of the podcast.  I believe there would be some other interesting areas to explore that could be subjects for future episodes of this series concerning Adnan.  Some of those areas could be:

1. Detailed analysis and description of the history of the judge, prosecutor, and detectives involved with this case.  For example was there any sign of racial prejudice?  Were any of them disciplined?  
2. It isn't clear why the two detectives refused to be interviewed.  They said they weren't permitted to do so?  Who wasn't permitting them to do it?  Did they have something to hide?
3. Has anyone drawn up a physical map of the area with the particular cell tower hits and events and tied them together with travel times?
4.  More of the biography/history of some of the witnesses.  
5. What was Jay now doing?  Has he stayed on the straight and narrow path?  
6. Is there the possibility of using voiceprints technology to determine of some of the recorded answers during interviews or testimony could have been deceptive?
7. Even though Adnan's lawyer died, the staff may have additional information protected by attorney-client privilege.  With permission from Adnan, would there be any value in exploring any of that information?  His lawyer, for example may have had notes that aren't public.  .  

Reform prosecuting police misconduct:

I suppose I have been very naive about the relationship between prosecutors and police.  I didn't understand what has been happening each time a police officer is charged with an on-duty crime, such as unnecessary violence against a suspect, or shooting a suspect.  Somehow, I always thought that a suspect, whether a police officer or a civilian would get the same treatment by prosecutors and grand jury made up of citizens.  I have recently, finally, understood what has been happening.  This editorial in USA Today has an excellent explanation of the problem, and what needs to be done to solve the problem.

Reform prosecuting police misconduct: Our view



I didn't understand how the police in the Rodney King situation could be excused for their action.  It appeared to me that the chokehold killing in New York, on video certainly had enough evidence to go to trial.  In the Ferguson case, there is now way that the police officer needed to fire so many shots into the suspect.  The officer had clearly lost control of himself.  He may have not been guilty of a crime, but he should have stood for a trial.

I can now see that we probably have the exact same conflict of interest between the FBI, Homeland Security, Border Patrol, DEA, and other Federal police agencies and their Federal prosecutors.  I'm sure there is misconduct at times within those organizations, and I wonder how the independence between prosecutors and the federal agencies is maintained.

How far will cop unions go to halt reform? | UTSanDiego.com

Steven Greenhut wrote about how police unions will "bend the law" in order to protect or increase their pay and benefits.  How far will cop unions go to halt reform? | UTSanDiego.com.  This is just another example of how by giving police-type agencies additional power and tools, it could be used for political purposes.
The contractor hired by the police union tried to set up  a candidate whom the union didn't like for an embarrassing DUI situation.  The contractors have been charged by the Orange County prosecutor, however it could be possible that the prosecutor could have a conflict of interest in the situation

Trampling of Rights at Immigration Checkpoints

Peter Rowe wrote an article in Sunday's Union Tribune about what has been happening at immigration checkpoints.

At Border Patrol checkpoints, these critics have nothing to declare | UTSanDiego.com

There are a lot of articles and videos on the web describing the encounters.   The article points out that the Supreme Court approved immigration checkpoints.  They may have, but as is typical, the police forces will take maximum advantage of every "tool" that they are given.  The Border Patrol checkpoints have now become checkpoints not just for immigration, but are also used as part of the "war on drugs."  So, instead of just verifying citizenship, they are searching vehicles for drugs.  They could search for any so-called contraband under the same guidelines -- which could be harassing political rivals, for example.  I'm not sure that the Supreme Court intended that to happen. Apparently the Border patrol sometimes does allow "silence" as an answer: http://www.texasobserver.org/border-patrol-takes-no-for-an-answer-at-internal-checkpoints/.  But apparently not always.

I'm critical of the value of the checkpoints -- Since they aren't open all of the time, pilot cars can warn drug or human smugglers.  Meanwhile it violates the rights of all Americans, the Border Patrol causes all citizens who have to pass through the checkpoints long time delays each day.

Criminal Justice system is failing --From Detroit Free Press

I saw this editorial from the Detroit Free Press as reprinted in the Editorial Section of the San Luis Obispo Tribune.  http://www.freep.com/article/20140828/OPINION01/308280015/michael-brown

I totally agree with several of the points made.  First, I agree that statistics need to be collected on all police shootings nationwide, and the data base needs to be kept public. Police shootings should include Federal officers (border patrol, DEA, FBI etc) as well as State and Local.

Yes, Police are taught to "shoot to kill" --because often they are in a kill or be killed situation.  However, a flexible response might be more appropriate for some situations.  When engaging an unarmed citizen, it would seem that a warning shot first, and a wounding shot second might be more appropriate than shots to the heart and head.  Training for such a flexible response would definitely be more complicated and expensive.  But the result might be more lives saved.  .

When an apparent unjustified police shooting occurs, we need to treat the situation in the same way as a citizen shooting.  Yes, police officers should be given some discretion, and the benefit of the doubt. The officer is risking his life to protect us, of course.   But when an unarmed citizen is killed by an officer there should be serious suspicion.  Should such an officer be put on "paid leave?"  Or should he be held in a jail cell?

During investigations of Police Shootings it appears that all of the facts are kept "secret" to protect the officer.  While if a citizen is accused of a shooting, it appears that police "tell all"as information is discovered.  We would know all about the shooter, his education, job performance, family, sex life, drinking habits etc.  However when a police officer does something the public is kept in the dark --with the promise that it will all be made available later.  This promotes suspicion among the public of a cover-up.

I believe the police chief of Ferguson should be held accountable for all of the riots that occurred.  Had he stepped up and arrested the officer (2 shots to the victims head?) and kept the public appraised of the progress of the investigation, I believe the situation would have been a LOT different.
26 Sep UPDATE on Ferguson situation: USA Today, Christina Coleman and Greg Toppo reported that Police Chief Thomas Jackson of Ferguson MO officially addressed the public and read a supposed apology to Brown's parents on a video that was produced by a public relations firm.. That sounds like a "forced apology" -- not from the heart of Chief Jackson, but because he had to do it.   This apology is over 6 weeks late, and apparently the police officer Darren Wilson is still on paid administrative leave.  Information about the shooting of  Michael Brown is still apparently being kept secret and is being dribbled out to a grand jury in hopes by the police that the grand jury won't vote to indict the police officer.  

COUNTY TO PAY $180K OVER ARREST AT GUNPOINT | UTSanDiego.com

This article by Greg Moran in this morning's Union Tribune points out the total lack of discipline in a typical police force that is tolerated by management.
COUNTY TO PAY $180K OVER ARREST AT GUNPOINT | UTSanDiego.com:
The San Diego County taxpayers had to pay $180,000 to this lady in a settlement due to misconduct of County Sheriff Deputies, and those deputies are still on the job!  I hope they are on Bonnie Dumanis' "Brady List" of officers that can be trusted!
If any other resident of San Diego County called the Sheriff Department and complained that a boyfriend or girlfriend had run up unauthorized charges on their credit card, would they get a response with a swat team of between six and ten deputies with arms drawn?  I tend to doubt it!
In addition to the $180K to be paid to the plaintiff, Michelle Martin, these rogue deputy sheriffs also incurred significant other costs to the county.  Apparently we don't know if it was 6 or 10 deputies who traveled from San Marcos to Ocean Beach to perform the arrest.  Are we to understand that the officers involved weren't deposed, and that the Sheriff department really doesn't know where their deputies are at all times?  However if there were ten, they probably had to travel in at least three vehicles.  Three vehicles, ten people for a 90 mile round trip probably caused specialized vehicles to be driven a total of 270 miles (at cost of 75 cents/mile minimum) and the trip itself probably took at least 2 hours.  The time for the home invasion, arrest of Michelle and booking probably another 2 hours.  The hourly labor cost with all overhead probably is close to $150/hour to the County -- so 10 officers for  4 hours would be about $60,000 + $200 for vehicle mileage expense. In addition there was the cost of keeping Martin in jail for 5 days.  On top of all of this, there was the County's legal expense involved in considering Martin's case, dropping the charges, and then defending the County against her lawsuit and then settling. The legal costs to the County, state and federal government were immense from looking at the various legal documents and news articles over the years this case was pending. (see bottom for articles)  There were many  cases filed, huge amounts of lawyers time, judges time, and court administration involved.
The Sheriff deputies who were involved in this should clearly be disciplined, and any such discipline should be made public, so that the public understands that our Sheriff department will not stand for this sort of misuse of resources.  This is important so we know that our tax dollars are being spent properly and that our police forces are trustworthy.
The case seems to revolve around an $8000 charge that Michelle made for furniture after being thrown out of the house she shared with the Deputy--and apparent father of Michelle's two children.  Somehow the Deputy must be responsible for the support and care of the children.  I found no mention of any child support payments from the Deputy for care of the children.  $8000 for furniture doesn't sound unreasonable for starting a new home from scratch with two children.  Why is that relatively small amount of money such a big deal?  I'm not sure what the standards are now for police officers.  However "in my day" in the US Air Force, officers would have been disciplined for living with someone of the opposite sex and unmarried.  Having children out of wedlock would have also initiated discipline.  Abandoning those children would have caused the officer's pay to be attached to pay for support of the children.  From what I read in the news articles, apparently the Deputy was a "deadbeat dad" during this period.
It is also disturbing to me that the action took place in December 2008, Michelle filed the suit in 2009, and it is just now being settled -- around 5 years later!  And the case was settled because the County didn't want the publicity that would be involved with a jury trial.  How long would the County have been able to drag out the case if it actually went to trial?
Here is the results from the Court of Appeals: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/04/16/11-55927.pdf
It appears that the San Diego District Attorney agrees that the Deputy actions were inappropriate--see the bottom of this: http://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdates/docs/0813.pdf
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/16/56744.htm
It is pretty clear that Michell's neighbors supported her position: http://obrag.org/?p=73026
Appeals court concerning police conspiracy: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Apr/23/san-diego-sheriff-suit-revived/
Appeals court believes there was no conspiracy: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/came041713.htm
http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/9thcir/2013/04/michelle-cameron-v.-michelle-craig.html

DA keeps secret list of bad cops | UTSanDiego.com

I thought this Union Tribune article by Jeff Brady was interesting.  Apparently all DAs now have a secret list of police officers whom they no longer trust -- called the Brady List.

DA keeps secret list of bad cops | UTSanDiego.com:

I can certainly understand why the DA would need such a list, and agree that it probably should be kept "secret."

I hope that the regional defense attorneys also maintain a similar list of officers whom they believe may have lied under oath. The DA needs to trust the testimony of officers.

I also hope that the Chief of Police is aware of all of the names on the list.  Being on that list probably shouldn't be the "kiss of death" for promotions or other advancement.  However, it should be considered when the individuals come up for promotions --particularly to the higher ranks.