rpn Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Why? There is nothing for the jury to evaluate other then who they happen to believe. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a wonderful thing until we think we have found a guilty person and cannot prove it. Because you don't need anything other than the testimony of the person who was the abuser to get beyond reasonable doubt if the jury believes that person and doesn't buy the defendant's challenges to that testimony.
Danzo Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, rpn said: Actually no, prosecutors have complete immunity in their prosecutorial decisions. Prosecutors are people with biases. Seems a lot more likely one would be biased to believe a judge, than one who accuses a judge. Judging credibility is supposed to be the jury, or a judge if the defendant chooses to use a judge. Prosecutors are supposed to be in charge of getting justice. Many a prosecutor has received sanctions from a court for prosecutorial misconduct. Edited May 24, 2018 by Danzo
Danzo Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, rpn said: Because you don't need anything other than the testimony of the person who was the abuser to get beyond reasonable doubt if the jury believes that person and doesn't buy the defendant's challenges to that testimony. If that person's testimony is credible. If it is not, there should not be a trial. What if the accused has a strong alibi? What if the accused has never been in contact with the victim? You need coraborating evidence. Testimony alone is almost always insufficient to obtain a conviction. Edited May 24, 2018 by Danzo 1
changed Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 6 hours ago, rpn said: No, I'm saying that child sexual assault accusations made when an adult should go to trial even without any other evidence (though I wouldn't be surprised if other evidence could be found if someone actually wanted to do so), especially against a sitting judge. I agree - it would be very hard for a child to report and make accusations. The testimony could include information on when/where - describe locations and other details of what happened that could lead to more evidence. It should be evaluated from a completely independent source, with no ties to the judge's position or other acquaintances.
rpn Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 14 hours ago, Danzo said: Many a prosecutor has received sanctions from a court for prosecutorial misconduct. That is true, but it is never because they did or did not bring cases. It is usually because they withheld evidence from the defense.
phaedrus ut Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 The most promising part of the story is that it was referred to the legal system from a conversation that started with a bishop. To much abuse happens when early reports are ignored.
JAHS Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 A side news article said that he passed a polygraph test which might have helped in the decision not to press chargeshttps://www.pinalcentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/area_news/lawyer-says-pinal-judge-passed-polygraph-test/article_bee07268-bd9a-5916-8c60-7b80c3139adc.html
rongo Posted May 24, 2018 Author Posted May 24, 2018 1 minute ago, JAHS said: A side news article said that he passed a polygraph test which might have helped in the decision not to press chargeshttps://www.pinalcentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/area_news/lawyer-says-pinal-judge-passed-polygraph-test/article_bee07268-bd9a-5916-8c60-7b80c3139adc.html Some here said that was worse than useless, but it certainly doesn't hurt your case, does it? And in his position, all he could do was deny the allegations and pass a polygraph. That's all he can do.
Recommended Posts