Damn technicalities! What's innocence got to do with it?

[George_S]

Court rules innocence supersedes guilty plea
Houston Chronicle By Associated Press

December 18, 2002

AUSTIN -- A defendant's actual innocence is more important than a guilty plea, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled today in siding with a man who admitted to sexual assault only to later produce evidence that would exonerate him.

Defense attorneys hailed the ruling as critical to keeping the justice system open to defendants who are convicted but can later prove their innocence.

The court had already determined that a defendant can appeal when new evidence contradicts a guilty verdict during trial. But it hadn't decided what to do with someone who pleads guilty to a crime. The court ruled 5-4 on a case from Dallas County. The defendant's new claim of innocence, with the evidence to back it up, outweigh his previous guilty plea, the court said.

Punishing an innocent person violates due process, the court majority said in an opinion written by Judge Tom Price. "The purpose of criminal proceedings is to separate the guilty from the innocent," Price wrote. "The guilty plea process is not perfect." Wesley Ronald Tuley went to trial on aggravated sexual assault charges in 1997.

Facing a deadlocked jury, he pleaded guilty rather sit for another trial and the possibility of life in prison if convicted. He had already spent 10 months in jail and would stay there until the case was resolved. He also said he could not afford to keep his attorney during another trial and was addicted to drugs. Tuley was sentenced to 10 years community supervision. The supervision was later revoked and he was sent to prison. Tuley took another two years to file his habeas corpus appeal, noting that his accuser had recanted her testimony. She provided sworn testimony that she made up the charges because she didn't like Tuley and his relationship with her mother.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/innocence-guilty.htm

[shoelace414]

1. and the court only ruled 5-4

[lukasahero]

2. "A defendant's actual innocence is more important than a guilty plea"

"the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled today." I read the first line of and thought "Duh, did we really need them to tell us this?"

But then I read "The court ruled 5-4 on a case from Dallas County." and thought "Man are we f*cked." How on earth can we have 4 judges who would vote against this?

[forgethell]

3. This is unbelievable!!

It staggers my mind that anyone would vote to convict for rape based upon the unsupported word of the alleged victim. There are way too many cases of lies being told, and we are taught that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man be punished.

Of course, in real life, it doesn't work out that way. But what I want to know is: How long is the lying little ... person going to go to jail. For perjury for one thing. And there ought to be a law that if you lie, and someone goes to jail, you serve as long as he did.x( :mad:

[George_S]

4. What if they remain silent then?

Recanting and trying to make it right is rare enough. No one would ever do it if they might go to prison.

It's also interesting the someone would plead guilty though not. It's not that unusual and depicts overwhelming the power of the state.

[forgethell]

5. I don't have a good answer for you.

All I know is that I, personally, have been a victim of lies (not about rape, though), and the person that does it should be punished severely.

You are right, though. The state has incredible power. In my opinion, it should be reduced. A lot of the problem, I feel, is prosecutors who are trying to win rather than reach the truth. This is not what they are supposed to do. Careerism is a terrible disease that afflicts Democratic office holders as well as Republicans.

As for pleading guilty when not, I know people do it. I just don't understand it.

MERRY CHRISTMAS :toast: