Fair treatment for school students

I can sympathize with school principals and police.  They believe their job is to identify the guilty as quickly as possible. They understand that their te is valuable, and paid by taxpayers.  Obtaining a confession is the best and quickest solution.  However, the techniques they may be using do not necessarily stand up to rules of American justice & fair play.  See this article in Guardian:  Adult interrogation tactics in schools turn principals into police officers http://gu.com/p/46n22

I think techniques like this could be used by schools, but only if video recorded and if a parent or guardian is viewing it while it is being done....with some reasonable rights to veto or terminate the process.

General Petraeus

The LA Times published an editorial critical of the light sentence proposed for General David Petraeus who was found guilty of releasing classified information to his mistress

A double standard on government secrets for David Petraeus http://lat.ms/1CK1Bzs

I agree with the LA Times editorial board. The crime of releasing classified data should not be one of "degree" --who knows what information could end up being critical?  Petreaus certainly knew better and knew the law. The fact that up to then he did a good job could apply yo many other defendants.

U.S. judges see 'epidemic' of prosecutorial misconduct in state - LA Times

February 1st 2015 Sunday LA Times had an article by Maura Dolan about a Federal Court of appeals citing misconduct by prosecutors:  U.S. judges see 'epidemic' of prosecutorial misconduct in state - LA Times
I think this was an important event.  Deputy Attorney General Kevin R. Vienna wanted the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court to "rubber stamp" a murder conviction of Johnny Baca when there had already been significant evidence that the prosecutors in the case had presented false evidence in the original trial --and the prosecutors knew about  it!  The article quotes the three judges on the court of appeals: Judge Alex Kozinski, Judge Kim Wardlaw, and Judge William Fletcher.  They also pressed the Deputy Attorney General to make sure that his boss, Kamala Harris, was aware of the situation.  Apparently Harris was not aware, and stopped Vienna.  Probably a smart move, since Harris is one of the leading candidates for US Senator, or Governor and probably doesn't want to be involved in such a scandal.

Maura Dolan, in her article,  described an "epidemic" of prosecutorial misconduct, with no discipline against the prosecutors.

Yes, I understand that our Police and Prosecutors have a very difficult job, with seemingly too many arcane rules about how they do their job.  However it is clear that there are many cases where police and prosecutors violate the law and get away with it.  That has an effect of "poisoning" the jury pool.  If we, as jurors, can't trust the police and prosecutors to tell the truth, how can we make a good decision?  All it takes is a few "bad apples" to provide citizens with a little bit of "reasonable doubt" that will let a criminal get off.

I've only served as a juror about 4 times in my life.  As a juror, we understand that we are making a decision based upon incomplete data.  So we have to evaluate the veracity of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense. We also understand that if, for any reason, it turns out that additional information or evidence is discovered AFTER we make our decision, that if we found a defendant guilty, that the decision can be corrected after the fact.  There have been MANY situations where new evidence has been discovered years, or even decades after a person was found guilty, that clearly shows that the defendant was, in fact, innocent.  In almost all of these situations, I'm astounded that the prosecutors and judges who were involved in the original conviction seem to do everything they can to prevent the overturn of the decision.  They also seem to try to delay any decision--they seem to want their erroneous decision to not be overturned, rather than correct the situation and allow justice to occur.  What is wrong with them?

I believe that prosecutors think of their job as a game rather than an important role in achieving justice.  They don't want to "lose" a battle, even if they know that it would result in fairness to everyone.  When they have either been negligent or intentionally violated the law, they know that there is no recourse. They won't lose their license, won't be fined, and will not be sent to prison.  Somehow there needs to be a way that these VERY high paid government employees can be forced to have some "skin in the game" -- so that if they, in fact, lie, cheat or in some other way cause someone to go to prison who doesn't belong, that they will be also given an equivalent punishment for such misconduct.  Not a "mistake" -- but a situation where the police or prosecutors know that vital evidence is being withheld to strengthen their case.

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.