|
Well, I know the story, so I didn't read very far on this particular incarnation of it, MagiK. But no matter how you spin it, here's the situation:
1. Dirty Cop +
2. Many many many convictions are 2 witnesses - the accused and the officer. Officer says he had drugs, witness says he didn't. Put an officer in front of a jury and they simply smile and believe what he says.
I personally have seen my wife write appeals where there were 2 "criminals," each saying the drugs were planted, and only one officer with his almighty "word." Now, here's the worst part: there were other officers at the scene but only one bothered to show up and testify in court. One officer v. 2 accused + only the officers word = conviction, conviction affirmed, case closed.
My wife was writing for the State, BTW, and I love to see her get a "W," but the system seems troubled at base (she did NOT do the original trial, only the appeal).
And, don't get me wrong, the criminals' side of the story was not ironclad. It really was a toss up. But, what about "beyond all reasonable doubt." Toss-ups go to the defendant - by legal definition of "beyond all reasonable doubt." Yeah, right. In theory. But juries place the credibility of an officer at the tip-top of the scale.
It's a recipe for disaster.
__________________
 
|