Mississippi Burning: seeking closure in Civil Rights murders

[shereads]

Has a 41-year-old murder case ever been successfully prosecuted? Anybody know?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56513-2005Jan7.html

 

[shereads]

Why Killen went free the first time:

...the three friends disappeared but were later found buried in the muck of a country dam. They had been beaten and shot.

After a massive federal investigation, seven men were convicted by an all-white jury on federal conspiracy charges in 1967, but none of the men faced murder charges and none served more than six years in prison. Killen went free after the trial. One juror reportedly said he refused to vote to convict a preacher.

This is why I have no faith in the jury system.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Has a 41-year-old murder case ever been successfully prosecuted? Anybody know?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56513-2005Jan7.html

I'm sure it's been done before, but it's not easy. Digging up 40 year old memories, witnesses are dead, evidence has been lost.... etc. Probablly a long shot at best, but still possible. What is probablly more likely is that Killen at 80, will die in jail before the trial and appeals are ever completed.

Yeah, I love the all white jury in Mississippi in 1967. I'm sure that was a fair trial.

 

[cantdog]

Juries can be infuriating. Ask any lawyer who does courtroom trial work. People really do not seem to get it.

I know it seems that the juror you quote was just Klan and refused on his own grounds, but it could just as easily have been exactly that: not willing to convict a preacher. Many weirder ideas have surfaced in jury rooms.

The last trial but one that I was involved in, the cop just lied. He'd arrested the fellow he'd wanted to arrest, but not the fellow he had evidence against. So he swore to a false identification in order to convict. I knew enough about the events to be completely certain of it.

You can easily collect stories about the unreliable nature of eyewitnesses, even when they aren't trying deliberately to lie.

Eyewitnesses, jurors, perjured cops, corruption, politics. The justice system is an unholy mess. But it succeeds admirably just the same: it puts a lot of poor and brown people behind bars, and frees the rich white republicans. That's its function.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Eyewitnesses, jurors, perjured cops, corruption, politics. The justice system is an unholy mess. But it succeeds admirably just the same: it puts a lot of poor and brown people behind bars, and frees the rich white republicans. That's its function.

Now don't be descriminatory... it frees the rich white democrats too. Just ask Ted Kennedy.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Not to long ago a murder from the 1950's was successfully prosecuted in Montana? Wyoning? Somewhere out there. The case is atypical in that the physical evidence had been carefully preserved and the main piece of evidence, paint flecks, were gathered by a forward thinking detective who had the mother of the victim vaccum her house and he saved the dust.

Modern forensics have opened up a lot of old cases, but in this one, I think there isn't a lot of physical evidence that modern science can shed new light on. The prosecutors are probably counting more on a more enlightened populace than new evidence and that is always a dicey proposition.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't think our jury system is at fault... of course, I'm a bit bias, I think the Law is excellent.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't think our jury system is at fault... of course, I'm a bit bias, I think the Law is excellent.

Law is definitely cool. It's the law in practice that can boggle the mind.

Ever been on a jury, Joe?

---Zoot

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I don't think our jury system is at fault... of course, I'm a bit bias, I think the Law is excellent.

law is extremely interesting. It's the jury of my peers that worries me, I don't know those people and they are crazy.

 

[shereads]

Juries can be infuriating. Ask any lawyer who does courtroom trial work. People really do not seem to get it.

I know it seems that the juror you quote was just Klan and refused on his own grounds, but it could just as easily have been exactly that: not willing to convict a preacher. Many weirder ideas have surfaced in jury rooms.

I've been on four juries, and all four experiences were as absurd as they were upsetting. I don't doubt that the juror you're referring to just wasn't willing to convict a preacher. We had a juror who, despite having sworn the oath to abide by the judge's instructions etc etc., was determined to be the only not-guilty vote in a murder case that had a signed confession and heaps of evidence. He agreed there was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but had to be bullied into giving us a reason for his not-guilty vote: "Only God has the right to send someone to prison."

As happened in all four juries, the majority bullied him into going along so everyone could go home. That's what motivated every jury I've been on: the need to agree on something, anything, so everyone could go home.

I'd rather throw myself on the mercy of a judge or a panel of professional jurors than trust the judgement of 12 random people off the street, most of whom will be willingly led by one or two strong personalities in the room (twice, it was me.)



Unless I was guilty and had signed a confession. Then I'd want a jury. I might get lucky.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by dr_mabeuse
Law is definitely cool. It's the law in practice that can boggle the mind.

Ever been on a jury, Joe?

---Zoot

Yes, murder trial.

And I have to say, I believe the system to be excellent. The Law, rightly, gives the power of decision to a random sample of the people. I can't agree with the idea of "professional jurors"--much too high a chance of corruption of position for me.

I believe the system works.

 

[Pure]

measured how?
better, compared to the alternatives? any evidence?

 

[cantdog]

I believe it works too. The prison industrial system makes money, and the poor fear the representatives of the law. This is exactly what anyone had in mind anyway, beyond the framers. People have to make these things work. People are venal. So the results gratify venal people, despite the skull sweat which goes into the design.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The largest flaw in the system is that it is a system designed by, operated by and designed for use upon, people.

People are fallible. If they weren't, we wouldn't need a system in the first place. The judges are fallible, often letting personal politics out weigh their responsibility to be impartial. Lawyers are fallible, most often sacrificing ethics for cash. Jurors are fallible in the extreme, carrying with them a life time of ersonal prejudices. Defendants, witnesses, experts, all are human and thus imperfect.

They system allows outlandish decisions occasionally. I think the miracle is that it functions the way it was intended as often as it does.

-Colly

 

[cantdog]

Precisely, Colleen.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
People are fallible. If they weren't, we wouldn't need a system in the first place. The judges are fallible, often letting personal politics out weigh their responsibility to be impartial. Lawyers are fallible, most often sacrificing ethics for cash. Jurors are fallible in the extreme, carrying with them a life time of ersonal prejudices. Defendants, witnesses, experts, all are human and thus imperfect.

(This is one of those times I'm grateful for having so many lawyer friends)

I'm not sure we're being fair to actuality, here. Judges, lawyers, and jurors are fallible, but I'm not certain how often or with what significance they are fallable. I would venture to say that it is far from the norm. I believe we have a system that supports impartial judges, ethical lawyers, and a system that allows for the weeding out of jurors with extreme prejudices.

They system allows outlandish decisions occasionally. I think the miracle is that it functions the way it was intended as often as it does.

-Colly

It also checks and balances itself, runaway verdicts and juries aren't the end-all of anything and our appeals process is most excellent. I think its a rare tragedy when the system doesn't work, but an inevitability that it functions as it does.

 

[cloudy]

I watched a special on the Rosenberg trial the other day.

Joe, are you familiar at all with that case?

Talk about fallible! That case was appalling in the way that the system worked, from the judge all the way down to the jury....including the prosecutor.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I watched a special on the Rosenberg trial the other day.

Joe, are you familiar at all with that case?

Talk about fallible! That case was appalling in the way that the system worked, from the judge all the way down to the jury....including the prosecutor.

And yet, the Rosenbergs were both guilty. Declassified soviet documents indicate they were both guilty and deeply involved in spying for the Soviets.

 

[cloudy]

And yet, the Rosenbergs were both guilty. Declassified soviet documents indicate they were both guilty and deeply involved in spying for the Soviets.

Yes, but if you go with the way the system is supposed to work, they should have been considered innocent until proven guilty. Instead, the prosecutor, the judge, and I can't remember who else, hid evidence from the defense team, had conversations relating to the case while it was going on (I forget the legal term for it - not enough coffee yet), and pressured witnesses to lie - Ethel Rosenberg's brother, most prominantly.

We know now that they were absolutely guilty, or he was, anyway, but what if the documents we have now had never come to light?

Guilty or not, the way that case was handled was perverted justice at its worst.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yes, but if you go with the way the system is supposed to work, they should have been considered innocent until proven guilty. Instead, the prosecutor, the judge, and I can't remember who else, hid evidence from the defense team, had conversations relating to the case while it was going on (I forget the legal term for it - not enough coffee yet), and pressured witnesses to lie - Ethel Rosenberg's brother, most prominantly.

We know now that they were absolutely guilty, or he was, anyway, but what if the documents we have now had never come to light?

Guilty or not, the way that case was handled was perverted justice at its worst.

I don't disagree. Public pressure is often a motivator in high profile cases. Of course we must all keep in mind that the actions of these two and others percipitated the spectre of nuclear holocaust that would color thew world for over 40 years. I don't doubt that the situation would have been very similar if something had caused us to capture one of the intended suicide crews from 9/11.

Presumption of innocence, while a corner stone of the sytem, is not usually the case when the trial is very public and the media is heavily involved. Be it newspapers and the telegraph service of their time or CNN and Fox now.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I agree that our system is probably the best one available, but here in Illinois they've just released 4 men from prison after DNA testing showed they were innocent of the rapes and/or murders they'd been convicted of. Each man served between 10 and 27 years for a crime they never committed, and two of them were sent up using evidence intenionally doctored by the police.

A couple of years ago our Governor suspended all executions because DNA evidence was showing that something like 33% of the death row cases they examined involved innocent men.

These cases are not indictments of the way the system's supposed to work in theory, but they show what happens in the day-to-day practical application of the law.

---dr.M.

 

[cloudy]

I don't disagree. Public pressure is often a motivator in high profile cases. Of course we must all keep in mind that the actions of these two and others percipitated the spectre of nuclear holocaust that would color thew world for over 40 years. I don't doubt that the situation would have been very similar if something had caused us to capture one of the intended suicide crews from 9/11.

Presumption of innocence, while a corner stone of the sytem, is not usually the case when the trial is very public and the media is heavily involved. Be it newspapers and the telegraph service of their time or CNN and Fox now.

You're absolutely right.

I think that the hysteria over a "commie invasion" was largely responsible for the way that case was handled. And, you also make a good point about how similar it would have been right after 9/11.

The show I watched also detailed a mock trial held a couple of years ago by the Bar Association in New York. They hired actors to portray the witnesses and the defendents (using actual transcripts from the trial as a script), and brought in a jury drawn from the jury pool just as if it were a real trial. Interesting - they were both found not guilty.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You're absolutely right.

I think that the hysteria over a "commie invasion" was largely responsible for the way that case was handled. And, you also make a good point about how similar it would have been right after 9/11.

The show I watched also detailed a mock trial held a couple of years ago by the Bar Association in New York. They hired actors to portray the witnesses and the defendents (using actual transcripts from the trial as a script), and brought in a jury drawn from the jury pool just as if it were a real trial. Interesting - they were both found not guilty.

And yet, we know they were. Did the system fail or succeed in this case? Tough question.

The case that opened this thread is yet another tough question. There is no new evidence. No DNA or forensics science link that removes doubt about a disputed piece of evidence. 40 years ago, a conviction would have been practically impossible. Yet I wonder now, if an aquittal isn't just as impossible?

In a cosmic, poetic sense, there may be justice here, as Killen counted upon the system in place at the time to give him immunity if guilty. Now that same system is so stacked against him he hasn't a prayer of escaping I don't think.

In a systemic sense, I have to wonder if waiting 40 years, until a different public mind set exists to try the case isn't just a tad unethical?

The Beckwith case provides an interesting parallel. In the original trial an eye witness places the defendant miles away. That same witness is still alive and hasn't changed his story in 40 years. Yet his testimony wasn't as important as two questionable witnesses who came forward only recently and placed him near the scene. No new evidence. Just a new mindset. And a conviction.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think, if we're to talk about the quality of the Law and its function, we have to either accept from the beginning that we're talking about something that cannot be unfairly compared to perfect or something that can.

For my bet, I don't think it fair to compare the functioning of the law to the functioning of perfection. People being found innocent years later, people being found guilty for duplicitous reasons, etc.--they're real examples and I wouldn't ever say that they're not, but I consider the law much the same way I consider science:

The method is excellent for the prediction and influence, the modelling and evoking of accuracy of nature--despite, any maybe because of, the small subset of cases where theories have been wrong and later proven right. That theorizers are independant laboratories of realism is great.

Similarly, that courts (designed how we've designed them) are laboritories of the law... we can't haphazardly judge them poorly because of some flaws, if those flaws are correctable in the system well balanced.

 

[matriarch]

I think, if we're to talk about the quality of the Law and its function, we have to either accept from the beginning that we're talking about something that cannot be unfairly compared to perfect or something that can.

For my bet, I don't think it fair to compare the functioning of the law to the functioning of perfection. People being found innocent years later, people being found guilty for duplicitous reasons, etc.--they're real examples and I wouldn't ever say that they're not, but I consider the law much the same way I consider science:

The method is excellent for the prediction and influence, the modelling and evoking of accuracy of nature--despite, any maybe because of, the small subset of cases where theories have been wrong and later proven right. That theorizers are independant laboratories of realism is great.

Similarly, that courts (designed how we've designed them) are laboritories of the law... we can't haphazardly judge them poorly because of some flaws, if those flaws are correctable in the system well balanced.

'some flaws'............putting someone away....wrongly.....for 27 years......that's a flaw? Taking away 27 years of their life? That's a flaw.

Oh, and I supposed executing someone, and then discovering they were innocent. Just a glitch, I suppose.

Sheesh.

Do people mean anything to you at all, Joe??

No, don't bother answering, I don't think I'm even interested in reading your cold, clinical, logical response.