Submitted by djc8 t3_zxjq03 in nottheonion
djc8 OP t1_j20t7ip wrote
This article has a lot more detail on the story
TL;DR - Jeff Ross visited the prison to do a roast special, did interviews with inmates (who signed releases) to get material, and then some of that footage was used by the court in this guy’s sentencing. He’s now appealing the sentence on the grounds that the inmates’ lawyers were not notified about potential use of the footage.
P2PJones t1_j21rg2b wrote
The jail had a 'no contact' order on file with the jail, while on remand (pre-trial detention), saying that under no circumstances was ANYONE to speak to him without his attorney's present.
The jail ignored a lawful notice, and then the prosecution used footage out of context to incriminate him at trial. State argues 'yeah, there was a no contact order in place, but comedy central isn't a state actor, so they don't count'.
It's the same thing that cops used to do, try and persuade 3rd parties to act like cops to get them evidence they couldn't otherwise get, like bribing bestbuy geeksquad people to [illegally] snoop through peoples hard drives and account infor to look for any evidence of potential crimes, which they 'report' having 'just come across it'. The geeks committed multiple crimes, and the evidence is fraudulently obtained, but courts let it in because 'they're not state actors', and mysteriously the prosecutors fail the do anything about the criminal acts.
It's just any attempt to get around legal protections and throw legal rights out the window in the desire to 'get that conviction' (a bit like the story that came out today, of the cop who's spent almost 20 years marketing '911 call analysis', which almost no-one not a cop has heard of, and outside of his own little private study (that no-one has seen the data to) there have been 5 studies done all showing it's crap, but the cops and FBI are still putting it out there as good, and intimidating people with it.
Seriously, you should read the expo on that. It's more 'bite mark' and 'stitch pattern' bullshit.
Hei5enberg t1_j226iak wrote
Yea, sounds like the inmate is a piece of shit murderer but that doesn't mean his rights weren't violated...
When I was younger I used to be of the mindset that bad people(like murderers) didn't deserve to be treated like humans and I was a proponent of punishment(including the death penalty). As I have gotten older and the more I learn and understand about just how flawed our legal system is and how many incompetent cops and prosecutors are out there and how unreliable witnesses and evidence can be the more I have changed my views. Allowing ways to bypass rights and due process just opens up avenues for lazy cops and prosecutors to abuse our legal system even more than they currently do. If they do that to convict someone "everyone knows" is guilty that's one thing... but "beyond a reasonable doubt" needs to set that bar... not violating someones rights... otherwise, the risk to innocent people getting convicted is just too high.
P2PJones t1_j22dzb2 wrote
>If they do that to convict someone "everyone knows" is guilty that's one thing...
yes, the WORST thing.
If 'everyone knows' it, why don't you have lots of properly acquired evidence to prove it.
At the witch trials 'everyone knew' they were a witch.
Remember, what 'everyone knows', is usually '100 bullshit'.
Londonforce t1_j24bqw4 wrote
Just to be clear, the guy was found guilty without this tape (meaning they had evidence beyond reasonable doubt).
The tape was used during sentencing to determine what penalty he should get. The fact that he's a murderer is not in question.
P2PJones t1_j25ylyy wrote
Correct, they used this tape, shown heavily out of context, to show the jury he had no remorse, lading to the death penalty.
Londonforce t1_j2609sb wrote
Exactly, I'm just raising it because your points about the witch trials seemed to imply that he wasn't a convicted murderer. In this specific case his only options were to die in prison, the only thing for debate was how long he had to wait
P2PJones t1_j27mnzz wrote
no, I was talking about the 'everyone knew', that's 'prejudicial', and can cause a mistrial. And no, He could have gotten as little as 20 years if I've read the court documents right. That's why the Prosecution went for this out of context video, to try and show a lack of regret.
bob0979 t1_j22fniq wrote
It may be bullshit, it may not be but that's not up to hear say and gossip to decide, it's up to a clearly defined legal system to determine through a consistent process. As soon as it loses that consistency it stops being a useful process for its purpose (justice) and is now something else entirely (a tool for injustice).
Firm_Transportation3 t1_j255gcv wrote
Its Better that Ten Guilty Persons Go Free Than One Innocent Person be Convicted.
ArrestDeathSantis t1_j23lfx5 wrote
Room Temp IQ > Mob IQ
RoughConqureor t1_j249or5 wrote
I have no problem with the death penalty in theory. But like you said in practice the system is not good enough to make life and death decisions. Even if everyone involved is honorable and intelligent. (they aren’t) Even good cops lawyers and judges make mistakes.
Tom_Bombadilio t1_j24vin7 wrote
Even if they don't execute them they are still making life or death decisions. Imprisonment of over 30 years (literal) is essentially a death penalty. Taking someone away from their family and withdrawing them from society for 30 years or more is essentially a death sentence. They come out as a felon with virtually no relevant skills and a rudimentary at best understanding of technology, in thier 50s minimum, most likely with a body feeling its age, unable to do hard labor. No one wants to hire them and they don't have the social skills or understanding of society to be successful and have lost the majority of their life already. Like congrats your free, now go struggle like the 20 year old fast food wage slaves for the rest of your existence until you decide to give up or act out.
RoughConqureor t1_j27f40t wrote
Yes it can be harsh. But at least there is a chance of new evidence freeing the innocent.
[deleted] t1_j22rsk2 wrote
[removed]
Natsurulite t1_j22hwdm wrote
>stitch pattern bullshit
They should have brought that shirt to r/fashionreps
Like legit, even a newbie could’ve shit all over that “experts” head
P2PJones t1_j22woz4 wrote
yes, it's possible to, BUT prosecutors like to get their experts in. And once they've managed to slip it in one court case somewhere, then it becomes easier elsewhere, and once you've got 3-5 cases accepting it (because the judge didn't know its bullshit and the defense didn't know anything about it to counter it) then it becomes VERY hard to challenge the claims in court. It's how expert testimony works, is that when an expert becomes 'accredited' by the court system, you can't challenge his validity of general process any more, as it's become 'accepted'.
Trust me, been there, done that
Londonforce t1_j24bhth wrote
If his lawyers object (send the notice) but then he decides to do it anyway, isn't that just him not following legal advice?
P2PJones t1_j25z2qw wrote
no. Because he never got the legal advice. The notice was on the prison, who are in a position to intimidate, lie, etc. In any case, when you're represented by counsel, they MUST contact the counsel, they can't go around it and decide to contact the defendant. It's literally to stop this sort of thing happening.
Londonforce t1_j261luh wrote
That's the only part that confuses me. What I know from the article is that;
- the lawyers sent a notice to the prison for their client to not participate
- the client participated, and even signed a release to do so
- the lawyers never provided legal advice to the client about doing it not doing the interview
I don't get how the lawyers involved could take action against participation (by notifying the prison), but then never discuss this with their client?
P2PJones t1_j27lsnf wrote
It's not that it was a letter about participating 'in this'.
It was about ANY contact with their client by any outside people. It was a "ANYONE that wants to speak to our MUST Contact us first."
Doesn't matter if it's a cop, the DA, comedy central, some random guy writing a book - ANYONE.
The lawyers were unaware of this 'roast' being filmed until the trial when the prosecution introduced the video.
The lawyers DID provide legal advice that the client was not to be contacted about meeting with anyone, that it had to go through them, which the client signed off on, in the form of the 'no contact notice'.
​
You're too fixated on it just being about the roast, and it's not, it's anyone.
It's a critical part of your rights. If they Mirandize you and you say you want a lawyer, you are from THAT POINT ON considered to be represented by counsel, and cops absolutely can NOT question you until you have your lawyer with you. they can't go 'well, you want to talk anyway, I mean, your lawyer's not here, but that doesn't matter....
Once you are represented by counsel, any contact MUST go through them or with their agreement. That didn't happen here.
Londonforce t1_j28a8pq wrote
>The lawyers DID provide legal advice that the client was not to be contacted about meeting with anyone, that it had to go through them, which the client signed off on, in the form of the 'no contact notice'.
>
>You're too fixated on it just being about the roast, and it's not, it's anyone.
That's not what I'm fixated on. I'm fixated on whether or not his lawyers ever told him "don't talk to ANYONE without our presence" BEFORE he signed a release to participate in the interview. Lawyers told him what to (never) do, and then after he decided to do that.
P2PJones t1_j2duptn wrote
You're not getting it.
When you sign a release, that's at the end of a long chain of things.
That's after 3-4 hours of talking.
The prison was REQUIRED to talk to the lawyers about his participation BEFORE anything.
You're again fixated on the idea that 'he chose to sign'. Tell me, Given he had a legally signed document in force that says anyone wanting to talk to him MUST talk to the lawyers first, would you like to explain how they interviewed him and got him to sign the release, or even asked him to sign the release... without first talking to his lawyers?
deadocmike t1_j25c2yj wrote
So. The guy voluntarily spoke to a tv show, and you guys think his rights have been violated? Are you crazy or stupid?
P2PJones t1_j25yfql wrote
We don't know it was voluntary.
For all we know, the guards might have threatened him. Or lied to him that the footage couldn't be used in court, or something like that. It's exactly WHY there was the 'no contact' order in place.
Tell me, if it was so 'on-the-up', why do you think the prison, and the prosecutors went out of their way to avoid contacting his lawyers?
Prosecutors and cops go out of the way to try and screw people out of their rights, and mislead them to make their job of prosecuting easier.
deadocmike t1_j276uz9 wrote
What part of “the prisoners signed releases” is unclear?
P2PJones t1_j27mey2 wrote
The part where even being given the release (which is a TV release, not a release of legal counsel. It permits the likeness to be used on screen commercially.) means they've contacted him without going through his lawyer, which is a BIG constitutional no-no.
I'll make it clear as can possibly be for you.
If you are represented by counsel, ANY contact not related to everyday conduct in a prison MUST be arranged through or with the agreement of Counsel. It's kind of the point of having counsel. If they can just ignore the point of having counsel, and just talk to him, that's a MAJOR 6th amendment violation, because you've taken away the assistance of counsel.
deadocmike t1_j28n0o2 wrote
There has to be some “not a lawyer or law enforcement “caveat to that. Signing that release should (not saying it is) be the equivalent of waiving right to counsel.
P2PJones t1_j2dv2dx wrote
Why should there be?
As shown here, it's not like it 'can't be used against you'.
And as I linked above, law enforcement would love such an exemption, as they have a history of trying to get 3rd parties to do their job, so they're not considered 'state actors' (so don't need petty things like Warrants or probable cause etc.)
Why are you so keen and eager to throw away your 6th amendment right?
deadocmike t1_j2f3mg4 wrote
You sound like you know what you are talking about, so I’ll cede that you are correct. But if I as a private citizen convince a criminal to sign a release and he agrees to film himself incriminating himself, logically, that should be admissible. Because the guy agreed to it. Not my fault he didn’t listen to his lawyer.
Just my 2 cents.
HalcyonDias t1_j21z37b wrote
This would be handled differently on Game of Thrones.
Londonforce t1_j24bave wrote
The inmates lawyers also specifically sent a letter to the prison that he would not be participating.
deadocmike t1_j25c754 wrote
But he did anyway. Sounds like he’s stupid.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments