[Marxism] Innocence, DNA and criminal procedure

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>]

I was recently watching a TV news report on the "Innocence Project," which
does DNA testing of biological evidence (mostly from rape cases, but also
some murders) and how they have now cleared more than 200 people falsely
convicted (including 15 originally sentenced to death) in the U.S..

This report highlighted the case of a Chicano who, threatened with the death
penalty in the rape-murder of a woman if he did not cop a plea, eventually
broke down after many hours of questioning and "confessed." And even AFTER
someone else confessed to the crime years later, he could not obtain his
freedom until DNA testing showed the biological evidence left by the
attacker did not match him and did match the confessed perpetrator. 

I believe it was on this list a couple of months ago that an article was
highlighted summarizing these cases, and various elements that often led to
false convictions: confessions extracted by police; stool-pigeon testimony;
false identifications by witnesses, including victims, especially white
people of Black and Latino assailants; and "expert" forensic testimony
(supposed hair and fiber "matches," footprint and blood-type "evidence" and
so on).

I am curious as to whether there is anything like the wave of DNA
exonerations that has taken place in the United States in recent years in
any other country. And if that isn't the case, at least some informed
commentary and/or speculation as to why it is not the case -- for example,
in the U.S., multi-decade sentences (or waits for execution) are common,
giving plenty of time for scientific technique to evolve/improve), which
might not be common elsewhere.

I am also interested in various aspects of criminal procedure:

a) Although in theory barred, hearsay evidence is admissible in U.S. courts
PROVIDED it favors the prosecution, i.e., that it is a statement "contrary
to [self] interest." 

b) Although in theory allowed, in reality defendants in the U.S. are barred
from speaking in their own defense in their trials, as they are liable for
perjury. This compares to, for example, trials in Cuban courts, where a
defendant is allowed to say anything they want to the court at the
conclusion of the oral hearing in a trial without the threat of any
sanction.

c) Around 90% of criminal cases in the United States are disposed of through
plea-bargaining. Prosecutors routinely over-charge (with complete impunity
and the threat to use all the forces and resources of the state to make the
--at best-- exaggerated accusation stick); and "defense" lawyers who
routinely talk their clients into pleading guilty to a lesser charge. The
extraordinary delays between arrest and trial --at least many months--
serves as an additional incentive for a destitute defendant who is told he
will be sentenced to time served or time served plus just a couple of more
months AFTER having been in jail for a half year or a year; whereas if he
(typically he) insists on his innocence, he will probably be in jail just as
long or longer AND face the threat of two, five or twenty years in prison if
he's found guilty of the crime EVEN THE PROSECUTION doesn't REALLY believe
the person is guilty of but has charged him with to extort a plead of guilty
to a lesser offense.

d) Although in theory a felony, and sanctioned with heavy criminal
penalties, BOTH subornation of perjury and ACTUAL perjury are not just
allowed, but an everyday feature of the criminal justice system.
"Subornation of perjury" in U.S. law is defined as offering money or
anything else of value in exchange for testimony (the testimony itself does
not have to be shown to be false; it could even be demonstrably and
unimpeachably true). And perjury is knowingly making false statements under
oath. Co-conspirators and stool pigeons are routinely offered leniency in
exchange for testimony to help "get" the people police are really after,
usually with a fig-leaf of plausible deniability such as an official
statement that no leniency is offered or expected (the actual details of the
bribe are worked out with the defendant's lawyers and thus protected from
discovery by the attorney-client privilege).

Are procedures in any other country similar to the United States on these
points, or, if different, how are they different? 

Also, is there anywhere where a person FALSELY accused is entitled to
recovery/compensation from the state; or where an accusation made falsely
made by someone who in the U.S. would be considered an officer of the court
(i.e., someone in the role of the prosecutor), or made in reckless disregard
of its probable falseness, is either a tort or a criminal offense?

Many thanks to those who take the time to read this and especially if they
respond to the query.

Joaquin



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism