Whoops

Just over a dozen years ago, Texas executed Reuben Cantu for a brutal murder committed during a robbery. Now, via TalkLeft, it seems a Houston Chronicle investigation has turned up pretty conclusive evidence clearing him. Cantu had, by his own admisssion, been guilty of (non-fatally) shooting a plainclothes police officer after a dispute in a pool hall. But he wasn't prosecuted because, as the officer who oversaw the investigation puts it, "There was an overreaction, and some of the evidence may have been tainted." Instead, Cantu was charged in an earlier robbery-murder, on the evidence of a lone eyewitness who now says he felt pressured by police to falsely identify Cantu—whose photo the witness had already seen and dismissed earlier. Follow up stories are here and here.

Comments

[thoreau]

Yeah, but even if they get the wrong guy for a murder, that doesn't mean they'll ever torture innocent people.

Or, if you prefer, subject innocent people to frat hazing rituals.

[Jennifer]

Thoreau--

Perhaps the apologists will say that since this innocent man was executed AFTER a trial, our accused terrorists are better off without them.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

There was an overreaction, and some of the evidence may have been tainted

Serious flaw in the justice system right there. A criminal should NEVER be allowed to go free because the cops screwed up. The idea is to get to the truth not to play some complicated bullshit game to see who has the best lawyer.

If the cops screw up, they should be prosecuted, fined, fired, kicked in the nuts, deported, or you fill in the blank with your favorite punishment, but that screw-up should have zero effect on the evidence presented in court.

Otherwise you get predictable stories like this where the bad guy is prosecuted for a crime he probably didn't commit. Why? Because the cops and the DA know he is guilty as sin but they'll never make it stick, so they find something else that will stick because by god, that bastard is not going free on my watch.

[thoreau]

TWC-

I hear what you're saying, about admitting tainted evidence and then punishing the cops. I have doubts about how well it will work in practice, however. I figure that if they're willing to taint evidence, when the misconduct is discovered why wouldn't they be willing to frame a cop who's fallen out of favor? The guy that they "know" to be guilty goes to jail, a guy that they didn't like (for reasons good or bad) is fired from the force, and life goes on.

Bottom line, I won't trust tainted evidence. However good it looks, if it's tainted I won't trust it.

[Jennifer]

If the cops screw up, they should be prosecuted, fined, fired, kicked in the nuts, deported, or you fill in the blank with your favorite punishment, but that screw-up should have zero effect on the evidence presented in court.

So when the cops fuck up, burst down the door of the wrong house but do, in fact, find some pot there, this evidence should not be thrown out of court just because it was illegally gathered? What protection will accused people have from the overzealous Inspector Javert types, if your plan is implemented?

[Jennifer]

Also what Thoreau said.

[Pro Libertate]

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is not the ideal way to deter law enforcement abuses, but I doubt there's any other method out there that will sufficiently protect us from overzealous police. No police department is going to really punish an officer for doing something they all agree with in the first place. Only the most egregious violations of civil liberties would get a cop severely disciplined, I'm sure. Anyway, the idea that murderers regularly walk because of "technicalities" is hogwash. Most cases have more than one source of evidence, so losing one shouldn't mean losing the whole case.

Remember, unrestrained governments have killed and robbed far, far more people than criminals have. Better to lose a few prosecutions than to allow law enforcement to operate without strong constraints. If you violate constitutional rights, then you risk letting a bad guy walk. Simple enough.

[JD]

Jennifer - Well, I gather the idea is that the police might be less willing to pull such Javertian stunts if, for example, the cops had to do the same time as the convict.

[theCoach]

Akhil Reed Amar, from Yale Law School, is interesting on this stuff.

Funny. Thoreau is worried about cops being framed. I would be much more concerned that prosecutors fail to vigorously prosecute police officers who violate law, but none the less gather important evidence. To me, a very scary incentive.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Better to lose a few prosecutions than to allow law enforcement to operate without strong constraints. If you violate constitutional rights, then you risk letting a bad guy walk. Simple enough.

Of course, Jonah Goldberg via that stupid Starbucks cup would disagree.

[Jennifer]

Personally, I think prosecutors, cops and other such authority figures should have to face a penalty TWICE as harsh as would a "civilian" caught committing such a crime. Abuse of authority is a serious offense indeed.

[thoreau]

theCoach-

I'm worried about both. I'm worried that most violators would face no sanctions due to lack of evidence. Remember that raising doubt in court about the credibility of evidence is not the same thing as proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a certain officer violated protocol with malice.

So most will get off easy under TWC's proposal. But, if enough outrages pile up, some bad apples will eventually be offered up as sacrifices. And I have no reason to believe that the people offered up will even be the worst offenders.

Basically, I assume that people who are sloppy with evidence will be sloppy when going after the offenders in their midst.

[jdog]

Cantu had, by his own admisssion, been guilty of (non-fatally) shooting a plainclothes police officer after a dispute in a pool hall.

Cantu goes into a pool hall (with a gun, I presume) and shoots someone (it doesn't matter if the victim is cop or not). Oh, but the victim does not die.

When's the hanging ?

[Jennifer]

When's the hanging ?

He's already dead. Meanwhile, I assume the guy who actually committed the murder for which he was executed is still running around free? Perhaps killing others as well?

"Texas justice" is even more oxymoronic than "military intelligence."

[The Wine Commonsewer]

What protection will accused people have from the overzealous Inspector Javert types, if your plan is implemented

Jail.

Besides, Jennifer, in my world possession of pot wouldn't be illegal and therefore the cops would have no reason to kick in the door.

Maybe I wasn't clear, I'm not suggesting the status quo minus the rejection of tainted evidence as Thow-row and Jennifer seem to suspect. I'm suggesting a wholesale re-write of existing law that essentially protects cops from about anything they want to perpetrate on the general public.

And, I might add that all the tainted evidence rules laid end-to-end haven't stopped cops from exceeding their authority on a regular basis. I believe that we have less, not more, protections than we did 40 years ago.

Pro is right, there aren't many murderers who walk because of tainted evidence. But there are some criminals who do. I disagree that it is better to lose a few prosecutions, because the DA isn't the loser. It's the victim and the rest of us who lose.

My secondary point is that the entire legal system has evolved into a system where justice is seldom dispensed on either side of the coin (civil or criminal).

A third point is defining tainted evidence. Thow-row, tainted evidence is different from planted evidence. In this context, tainted evidence means something like, for example, we can't use the murder weapon with the defendants fingerprints on it because the cops didn't properly Mirandize the suspect. In this example, the gun is evidence that belongs in court and is instrumental in arriving at the truth. As I said before, the primary failure of American courts is that the truth is held in lower regard than the process.

And, now I'm off to the wineries where I'm meeting a friend from Maryland who's happy as a clam he ain't home battening down the hatches for the coming snow storm.

Salud, and Happy Thanksgiving to all, my favorite holiday of the year.

[Timothy]

More evidence that the death penalty is a bad idea, but I think folks should get down on the kid who never said Cantu was never with him. There was a report on this in the San Antonio Express News a few days ago, but I can't seem to find it in their online archive.

[raymond]

Allow me to congratulate the United States on an upcoming landmark event.

Americans can be proud of what your agents are doing in your name. (Besides the torture, I mean.)

[Number 6]

If you throw out the poisoned tree doctrine, you eviscerate what's left of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. If illegally obtained evidence remains evidence, then I have to wonder what force, if any, those amendments carry.
Suggesting that Prosecutors will go after cops who break the law is silly. Law enforcement types tend to stick together, for the same reasons soliders and firemen do. No prosecutor (remember, those folks are elected) is going to go after cops and risk being painted as opposed to law and order. The 'protecting the rights of the accused' argument has never and never will be popular.

Finally, the incentive to pay attention to the law provided by the poisoned tree doctrine is, in most cases, effective.

As for the Texas case: state-sanctioned murder. Disgusted doesn't even begin to convey my feelings here.

[I'd say]

we should be focusing on this asshat who didn't come forward before the guy got executed.

Oh, yeah, sorry... wrong guy.

He's a lot more responsible than the state, in this case.

Why do these low-lifes always falsely confess and testify against others?

[Jennifer]

Why do these low-lifes always falsely confess and testify against others?

Because the prosecutors reward them for doing so.

[David]

Why do these low-lifes always falsely confess and testify against others?

Because that's what low-lifes do. They'd rather lie and screw someone else than accept the penalties for their own actions.

[Larry A]

Once again: "If you haven't done anything wrong, what are you afraid of?"

[crimethink]

As for the Texas case: state-sanctioned murder.

So state-sanctioned kidnapping, resulting in 20 years in rape-land, would have been all right?

The problem here is not the death penalty, but the screwed-up justice system.

[Johnny]

It's important to note here that every single Judge that Reason would support, would probably also be the kind of judge that wouldn't have a problem with this kind of outcome.

I mean come on, he was a criminal after all.

[Phil]

So, crimethink, if you're going to be convicted for a crime you did not commit, you're OK with being executed for it, because all punishments are essentially bad. For someone who positions himself as being concerned with the killing of innocents, this is . . . interesting. Moving on.

(Note to self: Frame crimethink and see if he sticks to his principles.)

(Also, for the rest: crimethink is engaging in the logical fallacy known as the "False Dilemma.")

[The Wine Commonsewer]

6, If you throw out the poisoned tree doctrine, you eviscerate what's left of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. If illegally obtained evidence remains evidence, then I have to wonder what force, if any, those amendments carry.

Despite hundreds of thousands of Mirandized suspects & scores of 20-year-long murder trials, our rights are way less protected than they were 50 years ago.

Law enforcement types tend to stick together.... Of course government types stick together, that doesn't mean crimes by cops aren't crimes. DA's won't prosecute anyone for writing bad checks but it's still against the law to write bad checks, and I would guess you wouldn't be in favor of repeal.

the incentive to pay attention to the law provided by the poisoned tree doctrine is, in most cases, effective. I suspect that you don't have much personal experience with this. It seems you are suggesting that cops will walk the line to prevent a bad guy from getting cut loose but they won't if faced with true disciplinary actions ranging from jail time to termination. That strikes me as a backwards response to incentives.

And lastly, forgive me for my cynicism, but you are arguing as if we have a justice system that dispenses something remotely passing for justice. I would remind you that this an urban myth.

[drew]

The most inventive idea I have heard on this subject is to get rid of the process oriented appelate system and replace it with a post hoc review of fairness. That is to leave the evidentiary rules up to the lawmakers, but to require that the laws be implemented fairly. The argument was actually quite involved and nonintuitive. The main premise was that the current system encourages bad behavior by the legislatures as it gives them strong disinsentives to perform correctly. I don't have a link to the article right now but iirc it was posted on volokh.com a while ago.

[crimethink]

Phil,

When an otherwise appropriate punishment is erroneously applied, the solution is not to abolish the punishment, but to make sure it's applied correctly. Eliminating the police misconduct that got this guy convicted in the first place would prevent both the incarceration and the execution of innocent people. And, though IANAL, it's hard to believe that if this conviction was based solely on the testimony of a reluctant witness, it made it past all the appeals available to those sentenced to death.

And please don't tell me the death penalty is categorically different because it's irreversible -- spending your 20s and 30s behind bars ain't reversible either.

[Dave W.]

"Bottom line, I won't trust tainted evidence. However good it looks, if it's tainted I won't trust it."

10 years later, the lessons of the OJ case are finally sinking in with me. That Now special (I think its a free download) helped. Recommended, T.

[Phil]

When an otherwise appropriate punishment is erroneously applied, the solution is not to abolish the punishment, but to make sure it's applied correctly.

Perhaps, but if the latter is not achievable on any sort of reasonable timescale, then the former is the appropriate course of action, at least temporarily.

Eliminating the police misconduct that got this guy convicted in the first place would prevent both the incarceration and the execution of innocent people.

I'd like that, and a pony, please.

And, though IANAL, it's hard to believe that if this conviction was based solely on the testimony of a reluctant witness, it made it past all the appeals available to those sentenced to death.

**snort** You don't much follow this topic, do you?

And please don't tell me the death penalty is categorically different because it's irreversible -- spending your 20s and 30s behind bars ain't reversible either.

Again, noted that if you're ever wrongly convicted, you'd as soon be killed as imprisoned. The fact that you might someday get out, and can still receive visits from loved ones, and that, if you are released, you may be compensated by the state for your imprisonment . . . no, no, no! NO! Hope is stupid! Kill me now!

What a curious thing, for a Catholic to deny the existence of hope . . .

[The Wine Commonsewer]

This thread is pretty much dead but I'm going to toss this in anyway. The front page of the local rag had the story of the 9th Circus Court of Appeals that just ordered a new trial for a guy convicted of murdering two cops who came to his house in 1982 to serve a warrant. The court didn't deny that he shot the cops just said that he had a shitty lawyer.

That is a perfect illustration of my contention that the system isn't about justice or truth, that it's nothing but a game.

The truth is that the guy shot the cops. One eyewitness watched him pull the gun and he told her that it was revenge for the cops that shot him during an earlier bank robbery.

The court said that truth doesn't matter, what's important is that a better lawyer could have gamed the system and presumably kept him off death row.