tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post7759986777723467682..comments2024-03-25T02:53:26.373-04:00Comments on Women in Crime Ink: Is Rover Reliable?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-47656566445513079072009-07-25T23:10:21.114-04:002009-07-25T23:10:21.114-04:00I confidently expect that, any day now, some prose...I confidently expect that, any day now, some prosecutor will bring on an 'expert witness' who determines guilt by reading the entrails of a chicken.<br /><br />Don't laugh. Just wait. They'll have a 'degree' from a mail order college in entrail-ology.A Voice of Sanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11285284153694191831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-21481226984232957872009-07-25T11:53:56.442-04:002009-07-25T11:53:56.442-04:00I just had a suppression hearing involving a dog s...I just had a suppression hearing involving a dog sniff. The two cops testified very differently about what the dog did. The dog handler testified the dog had never had a false negative, but also testified that the dog alerted to two places on the defendant's car, one of which was not where the drugs were.<br />Meanwhile, the other cop testified he smelled marijuana himself. The pot was vacuum-sealed, then closed inside larger zip-lock bags, then in a garbage bag, in the trunk of a Mercedes. It had been placed in that care only 10 minutes before the traffic stop. The officer who made the stop did not testify.<br />Despite all this, suppression denied. Maybe I have PTSD.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16942422727278141113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-43651903549363995472009-06-17T09:03:55.259-04:002009-06-17T09:03:55.259-04:00Anon,
I'll try harder next time.Anon,<br /> I'll try harder next time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-22416926902133006482009-06-16T23:27:58.477-04:002009-06-16T23:27:58.477-04:00This is the worst sort of junk science. Show me co...This is the worst sort of junk science. Show me compelling statistical studies which prove that dogs can be reliable witnesses. This sort of study would need 10,000 dogs and 1,000,000 tests.<br /><br />When a dog is scented and leads the handler to a body or drugs or whatever, that's fine. But when there is a claim that someone, anyone, can read the dog's mind and tell us what it is 'thinking' then you have returned to trial by ordeal. How do you know it isn't responding to Snausages - or another dog's butt?A Voice of Sanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11285284153694191831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-43047366475185004832009-06-16T22:27:31.863-04:002009-06-16T22:27:31.863-04:00Professor Hale, you are an idiot of the first degr...Professor Hale, you are an idiot of the first degree.<br /><br />She didnt claim innocence or guilt or her belief of because the case could be made public obviously.<br /><br />And you sure have a lot of assumptions. Based on nothing that was in this article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-50577813508542061602009-06-16T14:21:48.336-04:002009-06-16T14:21:48.336-04:00..this questionable evidence could be used to conv...<i>..this questionable evidence could be used to convict an innocent person. Is that ok?</i><br /><br />more than OK. That is your strongest argument. I understand how the legal profession has strayed from first principles so that they now believe the object of the vigerous defense is winning. <br /><br />It would be superflous to beat a confession out of a guilty person. The purpose of having a 5th amendment is to protect innocent people from having a confession beaten out of them.<br /><br />Your desire to get reliable, credible evidence that was obtained procedurally correct is the safeguard for your client, given the assumption he is innocent. Our legal traditions accept as a matter of course that the accused is in fact innocent until such reliable and compelling evidence is presented. <br /><br />I assumed he was guilty because you, the lawyer, never made the claim otherwise, when that was the strongest argument you could have used. Perhaps not refering to your client's guilt is a lawyer custom. I suppose it would be come superfluous for every defense lawyer to state openly that her client was innocent while every prosecutor said the opposite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-65591760003676805842009-06-16T14:18:41.899-04:002009-06-16T14:18:41.899-04:00There are many things that can make a person's...There are many things that can make a person's body scent change. Diseases and medicines are among them. I hope you can so something about this Katherine.Leahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-40670597559858173422009-06-16T12:36:39.213-04:002009-06-16T12:36:39.213-04:00Professor Hale: Would it be "fair" for ...Professor Hale: Would it be "fair" for a defendant in a criminal trial to be convicted on less than reliable evidence? What does it matter whether he is guilty or not? Would it be ok for the cops to beat a confession out of a guilty person? My job is not to just be sure that his sentence is "fair" but that he has had a trial where the evidence has been reliable, credible, obtained in a procedurally correct manner and rises to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I do not think dog scent evidence is sufficient. But, since you brought it up, in this specific case, I do not believe my client is guilty at all. So, this questionable evidence could be used to convict an innocent person. Is that ok?katherine scardinonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-17554257066542430662009-06-16T11:10:09.732-04:002009-06-16T11:10:09.732-04:00Why would you assume the client is guilty?Why would you assume the client is guilty?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-9999544120410569192009-06-16T09:43:50.057-04:002009-06-16T09:43:50.057-04:00I agree with you that the reliability of the dog s...I agree with you that the reliability of the dog sniff test needs to be tested. If not by the judge then by the defense team. <br /><br />As you alluded to, this is not the critical evidence on which the case turns.<br /><br />I am puzzled by your attitude that this being a capital case makes it more important. A life sentence for an innocent man is every bit as important as a death sentence. On the other hand, if you know the client is guilty, then aren't you intentionally trying to pervert justice?<br /><br />I know that it is not the common attitude among lawyers, but the role of the defense team, when defending a guilty person, is merely to ensure that the process is followed, the prosecution is competent, and the penalty is not out of line with the crime committed. There really is no doubt that the defendent is guilty, is there?<br /><br />The right to a fair trial is suppossed to mean that guilty people are found guilty and innocent people are acquitted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com