Lachurn Terry

Prosecutor Misconduct, by Lachurn Terry

on Jan 21 2011 former Chicago police commander Jon barge was sentenced to four and half years in federal prison for perjury and obstru tion of justice because he lied under oath about his use of torture to ex criminal suspects; overwhelmingly black men. barge was fired in 1993 and was prosecuted only for lying in a civil case. he served more than four years in prison and died in 2018 in 1987, when ken Anderson was district attorney of Williamson county Texas, he successfully prosecuted Michael Morton for murdering his wife Christine, to do, so according to a report from the national registry of exonerations. Anderson concealed that neighbors had seen a suspicious stranger hanging around the Morton; house. after the murder. while Morton was in custody, someone else attempted to use a credit card belonging to his wife and cashed a 20 check that was in her missing purse further. the Morton;s three year-old son who witnessed the killing, told his grandmother that a monster killed his mother when daddy was not there what followed was apzrade of we know that prosecutors lied in court in 4 percent of exonerations. the real rate may be higher since we only count case with clear evidence that prosecutors made statement they knew were false, the researcher noted further horrible. researchers said. in” 2011 DNA testing of a bandana found near the crime scene identified the actual killer the district attorney office had successfully resisted testing that bandana for many years.Morton spent 24 years in prison for crime he did he did not commit a crime that was itself an unspeakable tragedy for him and his family. the real killer went on to bludgeon an other women to’death in 1988 Anderson himself was disgraced. he pled guilty to contemtpt of court. spent four days in jail was disbarred and was forced to resting from the position he later held as A judge. while researcher of anew report released on Tuesday.sept.15. said it;s hard to summarize the enormity of the harm judge and his underlings inflicted their victims, and what Anderson did, they,did piece together a critical and comprehensive study on tainted cases that have only underscored why Americans particularly black people have lost trust in the police and prosecutors. in the report titled. government misconduct and convicting the innocent. the role of prosecutors police and other law enforcement, the national registry of exonerations examined more than 2,400 cases nationally which measured the role of government misconduct in wrongful convictions how African american specifically suffer from those actions.the study found that 54 percent of official misconduct involved corruption or negligence by police,prosecutors, lab workers, or other government employees, the authors which included researcher from the newkirk center for science at the university of California, leaving the university of Michigan law school, and the Michigan state university college of law cautioned that the tally is very likely a vast undercount of the actual number of instances in which misconduct has led to the conviction of innocent people: they outlined that many who;he been wrongly convicted including those who pleaded guilty to low_level crimes did not have the necessary resources or legal counsel. why did ken Anderson conceal all that evidence of Michael Morton innocent? we don’t know. we could ask, but we wouldn”t trust the answer if any was given and Anderson himself may no longer know if he ever did ” the authors wrote. they concluded that the most important causes of official misconduct in criminal cases are systemic, pervasive practices that permit if not encourage bad behavior; lack of the resources need to train, supervise and conduct high quality investigation and prosecutions and ineffective leadership by police commanders, crime lab director and chief prosecutors the authors stated if these systemic problem are corrected, misconduct is less likely to occur and when it does happen, more likely to be counteracted before innocent are people are condemned overall,black defendants exoneration have slightly higher rate of misconduct than those of white defendants’57 percent to 52 percent but the difference are more significant for murder cases 78 percent to 64 especially those with death sentences 87 percent to68 percent and drug crime exonerations 47 percent to 22 percent the study concluded that official misconduct falls into five general categories; witness tampering occurred in about 17 percent of exoneration misconduct interrogations occurred in 57 percent of all exoneration with false confession or about 7 percent of all case. fabricating evidence happened in about 10 percent of cases, in three forms: forensic fraud in 3 percent of exonerations, police officer or forensic analyst lied about forensic evidence.fake crime 4 percent of exonerations, police planted drugs or gun on innocent suspect. or lied and said the suspect had assaulted them fictitious confessions in about 2 percent of exonerations officers fabricated confessions from defendants who did not confess at trial miss conduct occurred in about 23 percent of exonerations about evenly divided between perjury by law enforcement officers, 13 percent and trial misconduct by prosecutors, 14 percent with some overlap.misconduct in interrogations occurred overwhelmingly in murder cases the led to exoneration concealing exculpatory evidence and misconduct at trial were most common in murder cases, followed by white collar crimes. witness tampering was slightly more common among exonerations child sex abuse exonerations than for murder, and fabricating evidence was several time more common among exonerations for drug crime than for any other crime concealing exculpatory evidence contributed to 44 percent of exonerees conviction, more than any other

type of official misconduct the rate of conceal exculpatory evidence varies by crime, from 61 percent for murder to 27 percent in child sex abuse cases. its is so common and widespread that it happened in 82 percent of all exonerations with any official misconduct, the researchers noted. prosecutors concealed exculpatory evidence in 73 percent of cases in which exonerations occurred.police concealed exculpatory evidence in 33 percent of cases where it occurred including cases with concealing by more than one type of official and forensic analysts did so in 6 percent in some portion of those exoneration, prosecutors did know about the concealed evidence. still, the researchers stated that they knew of about 13 percent that included concealed physical objects like clothing and weapons. the authors concealed that this gap may in part reflect how effectively objects can be destroyed or hidden but information may linger in electronic or physical files or the memories of people in 63 percent of cases with concealed exculpatory evidence substantive evidence of exonerees innocent was hidden evidence that in itself help prove the defendant;s innocent such as an eyewitness who named another person as the criminal, the report noted in 80 percent of such cases, impeachment evidence that undermined testimony by prosecution witnesses was concealed for example, evidence that a witness who identified the exoneree as a murder told his brother he never saw the killing. in half the exonerations with concealed exculpatory evidence, both substantive and impeachment evidence were hidden often, a single item of evidence serves both functions, substantive evidence my sound more in important, but concealed impeachment evidence that eviscerates the credibility of a critical prosecution witnesses can be devastating to an Innocent defendant, the authors stated predictably, law enforcement officials usually conceal their own misconduct. that”s misconduct in itself, derivative concealment, they wrote, for example, it’s misconduct for an officer to plant drug on a suspect,and it’s a separate act of misconduct to conceal the officer’s knowledge that the suspect innocent. other notable findings in the report include: evidence of other official misconduct was concealed in 26 percent of all exonerations. guilty pleas rather than trial verdict obtain at least 95 percent of criminal convictions in the united states but 80 percent of exonerations followed conviction at trial. about 28 percent of those trials 23 percent of all exonerations included official misconduct in court. perjury by law enforcement officials occurred in 14 percent of the trial at which exoneree were convicted, or 13 percent of all exonerations including those after guilty pleas. in about a quarter of those cases, officials lied about forensic testing, or about things the officials themselves claimed to have witnessed the exoneree do or say. perjury by police officer occurred in 11 percent of percent of trials of exonerees. in 9 percent of those trials 7 percent of all exonerations officers lied about other information. most often, police lied about the investigation” conduct including what a witness said or how a lineup was conducted the most common subject of police perjury was then conduct of interrogations at which innocent defendant confessed. we miss a great deal of police perjury, the authors wrote. we rarely have access to transcripts or other detailed information about trial testimony, so we only lean about perjury at trial if it become a conspicuous issue, in 1959, the supreme court held that a prosecutor has a constitutional obligation to correct perjury by a state witness even if she did not herself offer the false testimony. however, researchers discovered that prosecutors permitted perjury to go uncorrected in 8 percent of exonerations. in most cases, the perjury was by civilian witnesses the most common lies were about the favorable treatment the witness receive in pending criminal cases of their own. we know that prosecutors lied in court in 4 percent of exonerations. the real rate may be higher since we only count cases with clear evidence that prosecutors made statement they knew were false, the researchers noted further. they said about half of the lies by prosecutors were made in a closing argument with a common pattern of repeating and affirming perjury by a witness that the prosecutor knew about but failed to correct for example, a lie by a witness who claimed to have no deal with the prosecutor. federal prosecutors committed misconduct in exonerations more than twice as of ten as police 53 percent to 20 percent while state prosecutors committed misconduct less often than police 29 percent to 36 percent

now hear is how the prosecutor do people injustices hears how the prosecutor do people of color now it”s time to stand and fight back now this how they played me I been lock in for none thing I been away from my family for 17 years here”s how they play us all read this now

lachurn d terry #490746
po. box 740
London Ohio 43140

hollar at me world let’s make a diffence

Categories: Lachurn Terry, law

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s