Friday, August 26, 2011

Overturning A Case For Withholding Evidence

It looks like an entire case can be thrown out, from the root, for withholding evidence.

I see some more recent sneaky efforts by Judges to try to make loopholes though. In a case where a man was imprisoned for 2 decades for a crime he didn't commit, he filed a lawsuit once he was proved innocent. He had repeatedly asked for the rape kit to be DNA tested but they "lost" it for 2 decades. Once it was found, it proved he did not commit the rape and he had spent 22 years of his life, in jail as an innocent person.

So this idiotic Judge in NY ruled that the State wasn't guilty of withholding evidence because "negligence" wasn't enough. He had argued that the fact they didn't store evidence properly was the same as withholding evidence.

I think they should appeal this one to The Supreme Court. Because that NY Judge just totally ruined the entire intent and purpose of the law. If all corrupt officers have to do is say "We can't find it" while someone suffers, that's a violation and perversion of the law that says the State shall not withhold evidence that is crucial to a case. And it wasn't negligence. It was intentional. Even if it had been negligence, it's the same thing and the only reasonable case law setting is to let this innocent man win.

One thing I thought was different though, thinking about my own case, is that this man had to first have the rape kit tested in order to prove he was innocent. The photos that were handed over to the State and AG in my case don't need to be tested. They're photos. Period. And they were photos, admitted already, of the exterior and interior condition of the house.

If those photos came up "missing", there is still grounds to overturn the entire case based on not just withholding evidence, but destruction of evidence.

That's actually a crime.

So since the case in the beginning, and the entire bulk of the report was about my place being unkempt or untidy, anyone in their right mind knows that photos of the condition of the house are directly relevant and can be used as evidence.

They admitted they had the evidence and if that "evidence" is "gone", "destroyed", or "lost" when it's already a fact of law that they were about the condition of the house (inside and outside) and didn't need to be "tested", we know that if they're gone, the State faces charges for destruction of evidence.

And that's not the only evidence they withheld either! They admitted to having withheld the photos, on the record, but there is more.

It's not like they were handed a roll of film and didn't know what was on it, and it had to be "developed" first, in order to know. They already knew. The photos were right there in front of them. They knew already what the content was and that it proved the report made by them was a lie.

So they chose not to turn them over to the defense. And like I said, that's not the only thing they didn't turn over.

Not only that, they had those photos and failed to notify the defense attorney about them. So if they received "evidence" which they didn't want to use in their case against me (because it worked against them), they still had a responsibility to notify me and my lawyer back THEN that they had them. And they didn't. The only reason they admitted to the photos was because in Termination Trial, I asked them about photos and hadn't they taken photos of the house or something and they admitted and said yes, they had received photos but chose not to use them. I didn't know. I made a guess and prompted them to testify against themselves. Some things I know and other things I guess about. It was an intuitive guess.

Basically, from everything I'm reading, the whole case has to be THROWN out if there is any kind of proven fraud, obstruction of justice, withholding of evidence, or destruction and tampering of evidence.

You know, withholding evidence happens way too much. I mean, despite the fact that all these people get caught, it happens a LOT. It makes you seriously wonder why it's worth the risk. It seems like maybe the State workers think it won't be that big of a deal or that the penalties are so minor, the benefits outweigh the risks.

No comments: