CJS: is there need for change?

Regardless of what occurs in the future with regard to this case, or, for that matter, the bias of this docuseries, I am of the opinion there is a need for a few things to change. So, this thread is to discuss what these are and why. I will post my opinion in the next post.

shadowraiths said:

Regardless of what occurs in the future with regard to this case, or, for that matter, the bias of this docuseries, I am of the opinion there is a need for a few things to change. So, this thread is to discuss what these are and why. I will post my opinion in the next post.

Click to expand...

Any child under the age of 18 should have an attorney present, regardless of the parent's finances and present no matter if for an interview or suspect interrogation.

Sinsaint said:

Any child under the age of 18 should have an attorney present, regardless of the parent's finances and present no matter if for an interview or suspect interrogation.

Click to expand...

I will second this and state that not only does the child's attorney need to be present, but some sort of child welfare individual. Someone who is out for the good of the child, regardless of guilt or innocence or anything else involved. Someone who can stop and say "This child needs his/her attorney, you aren't allowed to lie about evidence, you can't lie to them and promise they can go home fi they confess, etc etc." Things an adult would probably know, but an impressionable child wouldn't.

Prosecutors should not be allowed to hold press conferences outlining some gory detailed horror scene before the investigation is even over. That will taint the jury pool. Minimal information should be shared on both sides such as "We have a suspect in custody, this is the suspect, that's all I can say".

For starters, miranda. Imho, minors are not in a position to waive miranda. Thus, by default, they should be appointed an attorney before *any* questioning can begin.

In addition to the presence of an attorney, I strongly lean towards having a GAL (guardian ad litem), involved. This should, hopefully, reduce the sort of thing we witnessed with Brendan and his court appointed attorney, Kachinsky.

I would also support mandatory competency hearings for juveniles who are being tried as adults. That is, do they understand the charges and can they assist in their defense?

And finally, though equally, if not more, important. LEOs need to be trained with regard to questioning minors in order to avoid false confessions as well as false accusations. Why? Abominable interview techniques is how we ended up with the daycare scandals that swept the nation back in the late 80s to early 90s.

shadowraiths said:

For starters, miranda. Imho, minors are not in a position to waive miranda. Thus, by default, they should be appointed an attorney before *any* questioning can begin.

In addition to the presence of an attorney, I strongly lean towards having a GAL (guardian ad litem), involved. This should, hopefully, reduce the sort of thing we witnessed with Brendan and his court appointed attorney, Kachinsky.

I would also support mandatory competency hearings for juveniles who are being tried as adults. That is, do they understand the charges and can they assist in their defense?

And finally, though equally, if not more, important. LEOs need to be trained with regard to questioning minors in order to avoid false confessions as well as false accusations. Why? Abominable interview techniques is how we ended up with the daycare scandals that swept the nation back in the late 80s to early 90s.

Click to expand...

Wanachi sex abuse scandal... Courtesy of law enforcement's finest.

In the case of a widely publicized murder trial in rural areas like these, move the trial and summon jurors not of that county?

I'm not sure how reasonable that is, but having grown up in small towns, I know exactly how biased people can be based on one news story, much less highly publicized, extremely graphic press conferences.

ETA: It was strange to me that they moved it to the very county the victim was from and used jurors from Manitowoc anyway.

Sinsaint said:

Wanachi sex abuse scandal... Courtesy of law enforcement's finest.

Click to expand...

Oh yes. Who could forget Wenatchee? Or Perez, for that matter.

I absolutely believe there needs to be a change, this is just 1 of many cases that highlight that.

Interestingly enough, a lot of what you guys have already posted here, is how the Canadian legal system is set up. We have pre-trial publication bans here, very few details are available before the trial starts. Because of this.... there really is no need to change the location because the public does not come in with any preconceived ideas (at least not from prosecutors and/or defense lawyers, and the media in general) I know that they can try a kid under 18 as an adult, but I don't see that a lot, and if and only if they are charged as an adult, can a name be released/published. A child under the age of 18, can get an attorney (legal aid), it is not dependent on the parents income. I would like to see something like what shadowraiths said..... a minor child CANNOT waive miranda, automatically allowing for a lawyer to be brought in.

As frustrating as it can be sometimes, because I do like following some cases here too, I do understand why they do it, and I am thankful I live in a country that have these laws in place and prevents some of the issues that I have seen in this case (ex: Kratz news conference)

Excellent graphic by twitter poster, OaklandElle:

Recall seeing this video years ago.

[video=youtube;6wXkI4t7nuc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]

Post Crescent

shadowraiths said:

Legal experts blast Avery prosecutor's conduct

[...]

"A defendant has a right to a fair trial, which means a trial in which guilt or innocence is determined only by evidence received in court and evidence only evaluated by a jury," said Ben Kempinen, University of Wisconsin Law School clinical professor of law and director of the Prosecution Project.

"To me, those press conferences would suggest a colorable violation of the (bar association) trial publicity rule. The risks of prejudice are magnified in smaller communities because of the pervasive nature of the publicity and the likelihood that virtually the entire community will have strong feelings about the case. The Avery case appeared to have captured the attention of the Fox Valley market ... and you cannot un-ring that bell."

[...]

"It's unethical behavior with no legitimate purpose," Smith told USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin. "Prosecutors should err on the side of not inflaming the public. To prosecute a case in the media damages the legal system because you're prejudicing the jury process."

[...]

"There is absolutely no purpose for any of this stuff that Ken Kratz did," said Ritnour, who served two terms in two largely rural counties similar to Manitowoc and Calumet counties, from 2003 through 2010. "He likes and wants his name out there. He is definitely trying to get to the people who will then be in the jury pool. Even if Kratz loses (at trial), he still kind of wins anyway because he convicted Avery and Dassey in the court of public opinion."

[...]

"Ken Kratz gives this false story," Turvey said. "It's pure fantasy. The entire theory comes from the fantasies of these police investigators (interviewing Dassey). The problem here is that (Kratz) gave false information, this whole sexual fantasy, talking about Teresa Halbach talking and begging and yelling when none of this had any forensic science to back it up.

[...]

Kratz was not the only powerful law enforcement official giving numerous interviews with the press that were designed to incriminate Dassey and Avery. Now-retired Manitowoc County Sheriff Ken Petersen told a television station before Avery's trial that Avery "would kill again" if he was ever released from custody. Petersen also testified at a pretrial hearing that he did not believe that Gregory Allen was the real rapist of the 1985 crime that Avery was wrongly convicted.​

Post Crescent

Click to expand...

BBM: And there you have it. That is the sentiment all too often of police and prosecutors who refuse to admit they made a mistake. Often even with the most solid evidence possible that a person was wrongly convicted will those who are supposed to uphold the law and keep society safe step up and admit they made a mistake!

In the case of Avery I am not even sure it was a mistake as much as a deliberate attempt to hang high a man from the community who had caused trouble and been a sore spot for LE. I firmly believe they suggested to PB that Avery was the rapist and she (absolutely without malice) went with the suggestions. She pretty much admitted that after the fact and I have to say I think it is very easy for a crime victim to be easy prey to that type of suggestion.

I do not know if Avery committed the murder or not as I have not read the trial transcripts to familiarize myself with what evidence the jury was shown. I do know that LE and prosecutors can and do manufacture scenarios and in some cases, evidence. I will not say that was done in the murder case but I remain open to the possibility that it was. Why? Because it was done in the rape case against Avery. And then seeing comments from LE/former LE such as the one I bolded in the quoted post does nothing to steer me away from the possibility of a frame up. Again, I am not saying this happened...but I am not sure anyone can say for sure that it didn't.

Part I
Part II

I think the Reid technique should be banned.

Dateline NBC just had a show tonight about a murder/arson case in which a brother & sister who actually did the crime confessed to it but also fingered someone from their high school class they spent years bullying, a big kid who was slow and awkward. False confession eventually ensued by the slow kid and he was sentenced to 23 yrs in prison. The brother & sister who did the crime got life in prison for their part, but avoided the DP.

This big kid had a couple lawyers fighting for him along the way and the real killers (brother/sister) eventually recanted (a miracle in itself) and said the slow kid had nothing to do with the crime. It took more years but the new governor of VA eventually pardoned the man and he's out now. His lawyer is trying to get him fully exonerated and his entire record wiped clean.

----------

So, here's a case where there were TWO false pieces of direct evidence--false eye witness testimony (evil brother/sister who threw this kid under the bus), and a false confession by the kid after hours of interrogation. [Direct Evidence is: a confession by the perp, an eye witness to the crime, or video of the crime as it's being committed.]

There was no circumstantial evidence tying the bullied kid to the murder and arson except he happened to live in the area.

Turns out Direct Evidence isn't as strong as circumstantial evidence unless the crime itself is caught on video where the identity of the perp(s) can be determined or there is other corroborating evidence. False eyewitness testimony is what is getting cases overturned from decades ago. And false confessions also happen, as we know, especially with teens and especially developmentally challenged teens.

When someone says, "well, a case is only circumstantial," that means there's more than 1 piece of evidence, and that's a good thing. It's when there's nothing else but an eye witness that one should really question what's going on in a case, like what happened in this murder/arson case. (IMO)

The UK has adopted a set of standards for interrogation that should be employed in the U.S., across the board. Those standards have strict rules in place to ensure:

- An interrogation doesn't last more than 2 hours at a time, without a break.
- Lying to a suspect is not allowed (for instance police cannot claim to have a DNA match if they don't)
- Regular breaks are taken for meals, praying, sleep.
- Underage and developmentally disabled need to have a guardian in the room, be that a parent or legal guardian, but someone right there.
- Cameras in interrogation rooms capture not only the suspect but also the entire room and the interviewers.
- Every interview is fully recorded, video & audio


At first police in the U.K. greatly disliked the new standards and were convinced they'd never solve another case again. The opposite happened. They are solving 90%+ of their cases and wrongful confessions are drastically reduced. These new standards work. Every state in the U.S. should have legislation proposed to force this same standard! IMO.

Source: Dateline NBC 02/14/16 episode aired at 7pm EST.

I always find it interesting when people want to dismiss circumstantial evidence and make conclusions from direct evidence even after it's been proven that eyewitness accounts are not reliable.

JMO

So, very, wrong
imo

shadowraiths said:

legal experts blast avery prosecutor's conduct

[...]

"a defendant has a right to a fair trial, which means a trial in which guilt or innocence is determined only by evidence received in court and evidence only evaluated by a jury," said ben kempinen, university of wisconsin law school clinical professor of law and director of the prosecution project.

"to me, those press conferences would suggest a colorable violation of the (bar association) trial publicity rule. The risks of prejudice are magnified in smaller communities because of the pervasive nature of the publicity and the likelihood that virtually the entire community will have strong feelings about the case. The avery case appeared to have captured the attention of the fox valley market ... And you cannot un-ring that bell."

[...]

"it's unethical behavior with no legitimate purpose," smith told usa today network-wisconsin. "prosecutors should err on the side of not inflaming the public. To prosecute a case in the media damages the legal system because you're prejudicing the jury process."

[...]

"there is absolutely no purpose for any of this stuff that ken kratz did," said ritnour, who served two terms in two largely rural counties similar to manitowoc and calumet counties, from 2003 through 2010. "he likes and wants his name out there. He is definitely trying to get to the people who will then be in the jury pool. Even if kratz loses (at trial), he still kind of wins anyway because he convicted avery and dassey in the court of public opinion."

[...]

"ken kratz gives this false story," turvey said. "it's pure fantasy. The entire theory comes from the fantasies of these police investigators (interviewing dassey). The problem here is that (kratz) gave false information, this whole sexual fantasy, talking about teresa halbach talking and begging and yelling when none of this had any forensic science to back it up.

[...]

kratz was not the only powerful law enforcement official giving numerous interviews with the press that were designed to incriminate dassey and avery. Now-retired manitowoc county sheriff ken petersen told a television station before avery's trial that avery "would kill again" if he was ever released from custody. Petersen also testified at a pretrial hearing that he did not believe that gregory allen was the real rapist of the 1985 crime that avery was wrongly convicted.​

post crescent

Click to expand...