The Justice project is a watch dog group that rises up from the ashes of miscarried justice to point a finger at wrongful convictions and legal defense biased by race, social status, religious preference and so forth.

There are some who claim that as many as one in every twenty convictions is wrongful with some areas of the country apparently worse than others.

If you found yourself on the short end of a legal accusation with the district Attorney trying to play Jack McCoy and breathing down your neck with the power of the commonwealth; would you trust a jury of your piers to rescue you from this dilemma or would you instead plead out to a sure thing even if it meant acquiescence to something you are not guilty of.

There is a very real danger in a Jury Trial, especially if the DA responds by asking for the Maximum sentence because you have pissed him off by going to a Jury Trial.

Having been a spectator of the local legal ramble here in Worcester Mass on more than one occaision I know firsthand just how unscrupulous a prosecutor can be in pursuit of a legal cap feather. Their job is not to find the truth, their job is to convict, sometimes at all costs.

If an activity rewards with money/power then it's not a fair game. For our own cultural edification and for sleeping at night we like to brag about tendencies towards fairness as if they were fair already.

personal experience, though nothing so weighty as to bring a DA in. I was wrongly ticketed for an alleged stop-sign violation, and fought it, and eventually won (i.e., via dismissal prior to RE-TRIAL after managing a hung 6-person jury the first time), though at personal aggravation, time and expense many times the $85 fine if I'd been willing to falsely plead guilty. I managed to overcome the common citizen's assumption that, in a he said/he said case like this one (i.e., my word against officer's with no witnesses or other independent corroborating evidence in support of either), "tie goes to the officer" (I used that phrase in my summation to the jury, I think to good, possibly decisive, effect). Amazingly, the city prosecutor actually scheduled a re-trial, despite obviously not having evidence to meet the City's burden of proof against a credible witness/defendant. I went so far as to research and seek to submit as evidence data and journal articles on (un)reliability of witness testimony, including a study of exonerations under The Innocence Project (which I at first thought you were referring to as "The Justice Project", but apparently not). Prosecution got judge to bar those (after trial had already begun, even though I'd followed the judge's schedule in providing exhibit list, City did not, and I was unaware City had even objected to my evidence until trial was underway). Because judge's reason for barring that research was that it required expert knowledge, I went so far in preparation for re-trial as to move to qualify myself as expert witness re: scientific and statistical methodology in the studies. Long story short(er): I got a call the day before a scheduled hearing on my qualification as expert witness telling me the city prosecutor had moved to dismiss the case. I'm guessing that, despite being an amateur, I had a good enough grasp of legal basics (as well as a firm conviction of my actual innocence -- very crucial) that I probably made my case as well as any attorney (disinterested by the piddling nature and stakes) would likely have done.

Between that experience and the one time I served jury duty (far more serious matter -- we found defendant guilty and recommended sentence "reduced" from the 99 yrs prosecutor recommended to 95 years -- never heard what judge actually did), my answer (finally!): even given competent defense counsel, I would never trust a jury's reliability to reach a unanimous, correct verdict, especially given many people's tendency to defer to to authority figures (e.g., police officers, prosecutors -- a woman on the same jury I served on said something very close to "if he wasn't guilty, they wouldn't have charged him" during our deliberations!). Based on my defendant/self-counsel experience, I have a bit more faith that (again, given competent defense, and absent outright police/prosecutorial misconduct -- neither of which, unfortunately, IS a given) most juries will have at least a few reasonable citizens who understand their duty and the law -- especially burden of proof -- well enough that they usually won't convict an innocent defendant, though they might end up hung, as in my case. Obviously, evidence like exonerations through the Innocence Project make undeniably clear that the system is far from perfect and wrongful convictions, though probably still a fairly small proportion, remain an unconscionably high number.

That is impressive. Most folks won't take the time, and it's usually for the reasons you stated. Years ago it was almost a given that the cops were never wrong.

The prevailing mentality when I was growing up was that, if they arrested the guy then he must be guilty. I think that has changed substantially in the latter days.

About 15 years ago I got a ticket for crossing a solid white line (I missed my turn and crossed over and a motorcycle cop tagged me). I took it to court, hoping the cop would not show up. He did.

The white line was somewhat faded so I took pictures of it and made my case that I did not realize it was a solid line because it needed to be re-striped.

Mine was a bullshit story and the judge saw right through it. I paid the fine but no points were added to my record.

Recently, I got another ticket on LBJ for crossing the double white line to enter the HOV lane. The freeway was undergoing construction at the time (at the High 5) and there was no entry to the HOV lane for almost a mile. I went to court again and made the case that my offense should be dismissed because the lane was closed down and not accessable prior to the point I entered it, so there were no cars in the lane and therefore no safety issue.

They reduced my fine by $140 and added no points to my record.

As for a jury trial...If I were actually innocent of some crime, I'd be scared shitless.

Jack

for your efforts.

You are quite correct. If and when the commonwealth decides to lean on you it will cost money no matter what. I once made this complaint to an unsympathetic judge who commented that it was every citizen's due and conscript ( whatever the hell that means ) who benefited from commonwealth administration to be ready with financial sacrifice if required. What a load of horseshit!! Right is right and it shouldn't come out of your pocket if you are the one in the right, in fact if it was the other way around you can be sure the commonwealth would get it's money or a piece of your hide if you didn't have the money.

Great post, it was a pure pleasure to read.

jo

It may be the only way...but man I wouldn't want to be in that position.

I recently discovered that the IRS field auditors work on a commision plus pay basis....tell me how that's fair.

jo

Good Post!

Have a grear July 4th holiday weekend with your family, wife, kids, grandkids and the neighbors.

Mine starts tomorrow at Mom's apartment!

:))

money and gets your choice.

Or, as they say in ancient Framingham, let the buyer beware.

Cheers